Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-08-04

own territories are covered by a net
work of railways and waterways,
which enable her commerce to pass as a,
neutral countries as through her own.
A blockade limited to enemy ports
would leave open. routes by which
| every kind of German commerce could
pass almost as easily as through the
ports in her own territory.
Rotterdam is, indeed, the nearest
outlet quite for some of the industrial Lids dis
accordingly. that if it be recognized
that a blockade is in certain cases the
appropriate method Of intercepting the
trade of an enemy country. and II
| by extending it to enemy commerce
passing through neutral ports, such
an extension is defensible and in ac-
cordance with principles which have
| met with general acceptance.
Quotes Springbok Case.
The note then refers to the case of
the British ship SpringbQk, seized by
| United States cruisers during the civil
! war while bound for the British West
| Indies, because her cargo. it was
| charged, was to be transshipped to the
Confederate states. The Supreme
Court of the United States sustained
| the seizure against the condemnation
| or a group of prominent international
| lawyers, although the United States
broader view and recognized the de-
velopment of the older method of
blockade. No protest was made by
| Great Britain
| What is really important, in the
general interest says the note. lis
that adaptations of the old rules
should not be made unless they are
consistent with the general principle
upon which an admitted belligerent
right is based. 1t is also essential that
all unnecessary injury to neutrals
| should be avoided. With these condi-
tons 1t may be safely affirmed that the
steps We are taking to intercept COM
Germany fully comply. We are inter-
fering with no goods with which we
should not be entitled to interfere by
blockade if the geographical position
and the conditions of Germany at pres
ent were such that her commerce
passed through her own PORTS. We are
taking the utmost possible care not to
interfere with commerce genuinely
destined for or proceeding from neu-
trail countries. Furthermore, we have
| tempered the severity with which our
measures might press upon neutrals
by not applying the rule which was In
variable in the old form of blockade
that ships and goods on their way to
or from the blockaded area are liable
to condemnation
The note then reviews at some length
the various forms in which blockades
| have been maintained to show there
has been no uniformity of practice in
very essential points. and declares:
Defends Neutral Ports Blockade.
1.-The one principle which is funda-
mental and has obtained universal rec
ognition is that by means of blockade
belligerent is entitled to cut off by eff
fective means the sea borne commerce
of his enemy"
Consequently, Sir Edward argues. it
is impossible to maintain that the right
of belligerent to intercept the COM
merce OF his enemy can be limited in
the way suggested in the American
notes on the subject.
There are many cases." he says, lin
which proofs that the goods were enc
| my property would afford strong evil
dence that they were of enemy origin
or enemy destination. and 1t is only in
such cases that we are OBTAINING them.
Where proof of enemy ownership would
anord no evidence of such origin or
destination we are not in practice of
OBTAINING the goods"
! Sir Edwards note closes with the OBJ
| servation that figures of recent months
show that the increased opportunities
afforded by the war for American COM
merce have more than compensated for
the loss of the German and Austrian
markets We shall continue to
apply these measures with every de-
sire to occasion the least possible
amount of inconvenience to persons en-
gagged in legitimate commerce"
| In the supplemental note, which is a
reply to the American caveat giving
notice that the United States would not
| recognize the orders in council in lieu
of international law, Sir Edward Grey
| writes he does mot understand to
what divergent views as to the princi-
Piles of law applicable in cases before
| the prize court, the government of the
United States refer, for / am not aware
nf RI fn~ TOT;
| two countries as to the principles of
law applicable in cases before such
courts"
Prize Court Practice Identical.
| Sir Edward compares the rules govern
ing British prize courts to the rules ap-
piled by American courts. referring
especially to the American case of the
! Amy Warwick before the United States
| Supreme Court, where 1t was held that
prize courts are subject to the instruc-
| lions of their own sovereign. In the alb
| sence of such instructions their jurisdic-
ton and rules of decision are to be ascer-
tanned by reference to the known powers
of such tribunals and the principles by
which they are governed under the pub
lie law and the practice Of nations. 1t
would appear. therefore. that the prin-
cfples applied by the prize courts Of the
two countries are identical"
| The supplemental note then proceeds
with long legal argument to demonstrate
the practica bility of prize court being
governed by international law and at
the same time by municipal law in the
form of orders in council. 1t finally
comes to the case of the steamer Zamora
in the present war, in which the British
court declared: 1.-The nations of the world
need not be apprehensive that orders in
council will emanate from the government
of this country In such violation of the
acknowledged laws of nations that it is
conceivable that our prize tribunals, hold
ing the law of nations in reverence, would
| feel called upon to disregard and refuse
obedience to the provisions of such orders"
| Sir Edward then points out that the
LEGALITY of the orders in council or of
the measures taken under them has
not yet been brought to a decision in
prize court. but he reminds the United
States that lit is open to any United
Estates citizen whose claim is before
the prize court to contend that any
order in council which may affect his
claim is inconsistent with the prin-
ciples of international law and is.
therefore. not binding upon the court.
If the prize court declines to accept his
contentious. and if. after such deci-
sion has been upheld on appeal by the
judicial committee of his majesty's
privy council, the government of the
United States consider that there is
serious ground for holding that the de-
csion is incorrect and infrinEes the
rights of their citizens, it is open to
them to claim that it should be SUBJ