Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-08-04

the seizure against the condemnation
of group Of prominent international
lawyers. although the United States
and British governments t6k, the
broader view and recognized the de-
velopment Of the older method of
blockade. No protest was made by
Great Britain.
What is really important" says the
note, lis that adaptations of the old rules
should not be made unless they are con-
sistent with the general principles upon
which an admitted belligerent right is
based.
1T Is also essential that all unneces-
sary injury to neutrals should be avoid
ed. With these conditions it may be
safely affirmed that the steps we are
taking to intercept commodities of their
way to and from Germany fully comply.
We are interfering with no goods with
which we should not be entitled to in
reference by blockade of the geograph-
ical position and the conditions of Ger
many at present were such that her COM
MERGE passed through her own ports. We
are taking the utmost possible care not
to interfere with commerce genuinely
destined for or proceeding from neutral
countries. Furthermore, we have tenn
pered the severity with which our meas
ures might press upon neutrals by not
applying the rule which was invariable
in the old form of blockade, that ships
and goods on their way to or from the
blockaded area are liable to condemna-
ton
The note then reviews at some length
the various forms in which blockades
have been maintained to SHOW thereby
no uniformity of practice in essential
points, and declares:
THE one principle which is fundamen-
tai and has obtained universal recogni-
ton is that by means of a blockade a
belligerent is entitled to cut off by eff
fective means the sea-borne commerce
of his enemy
Consequently, Sir Edward argued, it is
impossible to maintain that the right of
belligerent to intercept the commerce
of his enemy can be limited in the way
suggested in the American notes on the
subject.
Sir Edwards note closes with the OBJ
servation that figures of recent months
show that the increased opportunities af-
forded by the war for American COM
merce have more than compensated for
the loss of the German and Austrian
markets.
I'VE shall continue to apply these
measures with every desire to occasion
the least possible amount of incon-
venience to persons engaged in legiti.
mate commerce"
... Supplemental Note
In the supplemental note, which is a
reply to the American caveat giving no
tice that the United States would not rec
ognize the orders in council in lieu in in
| ternational law, Sir Edward Grey writes
he does mot understand to what diver.
gence of views as to the principles OF
law applicable in cases before the prize
court the government Of the United
States refers. for am not aware Of any
difference existing between the two coun-
tries as to the principles of law appli-
cable in cases before such courts"
Sir Edward compares the rules govern.
Ing British prize courts to the rules ap.
piled by American courts. referring es.
pecially to the American case of the Amy
Warwick before the United States SUI
| preme court where it was held thai
prize courts are subject to the instruc
tons Of their own sovereign. In the alb
sence of such instructions their jurisdic
tions and rules Of decisions are to bs
ascertained by reference to the known
powers Of such tribunals and the princi
the public law and the practice Of ma
lions. 1t would appear. therefore, thai
the principles applied by the prize court.
Of the two countries are identical"
The supplemental note then proceeds
| with long legal argument to demonstrate
the practicability Of a prize court being
| government by International law. and a,
the same time by municipal law in the
form of orders in council. -
Sir Edward points out that the legalit,
| ures taken under them have not ye
| been brought to a decision in a prize
! court. but he reminds the United State.
that 1T Is open to any United States cit
/ lien. whose claim is before the prize
court, to contend that any order in coun
| Gil which may affect his claim is incon
sistent with the principles OF information
al law and is therefore not binding upor
the court. II the prize court declines t.
| accept this contention and IL, after sucl
q decision has been upheld on appeal b!
the judicial committee Of His Majesty
privy council. the government Of tn
United States considers that there is Sc
riousN ground for holding that the decision
is incorrect and infinges the rights o
their citizens, it is open to them to CLAIM
that it should be subjected to review b.
| an international tribunal
| To the American note in the case o
the steamer Neches. which summaril!
| demanded the expeditions release Of tn
American-owned goods detained unde
the orders In council, "the internationa
| invalidity Of which the government O
| the United States regards as plainly Illus
! trated by the present instance" Grea
Britain replied that while these act
Of the German government continu,
Csinking neutral as well as British mer
chant ships irrespective of destinatio,
or OF origin Of cargo and without proper
lEss.sa e sesetx e gee.eaGsEe g!
z - ~ -