The daily progressive-miner., 1915-11-13
WHAT LONDON
 HAS TO SAY
EyIDELTNY AMERICAN NOTE MET WITH DECIDED COLD
 RECEPTION

LONDON, Nov. 12-The London newspapers are quite free in their expressions in chticising the Ameri- can note on the subject of block ading neutral ports.
 Quoting the American arguments the Daily Mail says:
 '.Our case-it is very strong one --is that the orders in council were in reply to Germany's repudition of all international law. The power which will wickedly torpedo neutral ships and ships with neutral pas sengers and which sowed the seas with mines, showed complete indif ference for those neutral rights for which the United States declares itself the unhesitating champion We waited for neutrals to act and as they did not act we acted our selves in the interest of humanity. The doctrines which we applied are in essence, those laid down by the United States courts in the Civil war"
 Justifying the British procedure ,f searching suspected vessels, and referring to the complaint that no redress is obtainable, the Times says:
 "Did We not suffer grievously from those and kindred injuries in the Civil war? Do Americans for get how they practically wiped out the whole industry of SI,ancaschire and plunged it's population into dire distress? Did we complain? Di' the victims themselves complain No. Their sufferings were acute. but they believed the north was fight ing in the cause of human liberty and moral right, and therefore they were patient.
 "Some reciprocity 1t may seem tc Americans as we'll as to us nigh, be expected from Washington in the day Of our trial.
 Another point we cannot pass over is the extrayagant character of the language of the note. We make allowances, however, for tn. Americtn domestic politics, ant attribute to them the choice cl adiectives and turn Of expression not usually found in informal in tercourse between the government of great peoples"
 The Daily Mail remarks on tn fact that the note is couched in wig erous uncompromisings language pa-alleled in the American notes t Germany, but hitherto foreign t the communications passed betweel London and Washington. and admit that no mistake could be graver thal to underestimate the seriousness o tho contents advanced Ly the Unite States
 The Times says it in,agines tha American iurists and diplomatist will feel that the note is not alto gether worthy the better tradition: since it raises a-Gnun,bes of technira points of disputed international law but nowhere raises the broad vie, of the larger issuec ir.Y1.ved in t. sToldr war or indicates the states nsn's ability to adapt i'd prime pie to novel corditie.s.
 @The Ameri-11 note upon our in terferenee witl -he neutr- trade. says the Pal Mall Gazette, ",vil be read with some surprise in thi country. Wnl,es the duty ever, power to keeo vigilanr watch eve the interests of it's own comnerc will be freely re .,enize1, it must b felt that .hs United States .,arce ly grapples with the realities Of tn situation created m the first psac by the fact of var, an1 in the secon by the crinlina':ty of Herman pra' tices.
 Tn some passages the not seems to invoke ;he authorits . international law, IS f it's problem could be finally se.flsi for one be- hgerent without lefefence ,n he do ings of the other That is vie, utterly inapplicable in the world o things as they are It is impossibI to deal with questions arising be tween the allies and the Unite States while ignoring the practice of Admiral von Tirpitz and tn changes in policy which they enforc ed upon ourselves and our friends.