Evening star., 1915-11-08

| rightly be made to rest upon the
| claimants.
12) The greatly increased imports
| of neutral countries adjoining Great
| Britain's enemies. cannot be accepted
| as laying down Just or legal RUE Oh
| evidence" that commodities are des-
| tined for transportation TO the heiit2er-
| ents. Such a rule. it is argued. Offers
| too great opportunity for abuse by the
| belligerents'' and is opposed to those
| fundamental principles of Justice when
dence of the United states and Great
| Britain.
Increase in British Exports.
| 13) Attention is directed to the fact
| that Great Britain admits that her eN-
ports to neutral countries have also ma
| terially increased since the present war
| began. Thus Great Britain" says the
| note, "concededky shares in creating a
| condition which is relied upon as SUI
ficient ground to justify the intefcep-
| tion of American goods destined 10 heu-
| tral European ports. Ii BfltiSn en-
ports to those ports should be sun tuf-
| ther increas ased, it is obvious that under
| the rule of evidence contended Tor py
| the British government the presunp-
| tion of enemy destination could De ap-
piled to a greater number OF American
| cargoes. and American trade would SUI
| fer to the extent that British trade ben
Gifted by the increase, Great Britain
| cannot expect the United States to sub
NIT to such manifest injustice or to
permit the rights of its cltlzeflS 10 De
| so seriously impaired
| 1D Whatever may he the conJec-
| tural conclusions drawn from trade sta
tistics the United States maintains
| the right to sell goods into the general
| stock of a neutral country, and de-
| nounces a 5 illegal and unjustifahle any
| attempt of a belligerent to interfere
with that right on the ground that II
suspects that the previous supply of
| Slch goods in the neutral country which
| the imports renew replace has been
sold to an enemy. That is matter
with which the neutral vendor has no
| concern and which can in no way affect
| his rights of trade. Moreover, even if
| goods listed as conditional contraband
are destined to enemy country
| through a neutral country, that fact is
| not in itself sufficient to Justify their
seizure"
| G5y In view of these considerations,
the United States announces that it
| has no other course but "to contest
| seizures of vessels at sea upon conjec-
| tural suspicion and the practice OF
| bringing them into port for the pur-
pose by search or otherwise, of obtain
! ing evidence" and adds that 'relying
upon the regard of the British govern
ment for the principles of justice so
frequently and uniformly manifested
prior to the present war, this govern
ment antici ,,ates that the British gov
| ernment wi instruct their officers to
refrain from these vexatious and Illegal
practices"
(16) Directing particular attention
to the so-called BLOCKADE measures"
imposed by the order in council of
March II, the British note of July %,
last. is cited to confirm the intention
ito establish a blockade" After over
six months application of the blockade
order, the note says, the experience of
American citizens has convinced the
government of the United States that
Great Britain has been unsuccessful in
her efforts to distinguish between
enemy and neutral trade"
Harassing to Neutrals.
G7) The practice of requiring a
consignor to prove that his shipments
are not bound to an enemy of Great
Britain, even when articles are on the
embargo list of the neutral country to
which they are destined, is character
lied as 'harassing to neutral traedrs"
GS) While the United States gov
ernment was at first inclined to view
with leniency the British measures
which were termed in the correspond
ence. but not in the order in council of
March II, "a blockade because of the
assurances of the British government
| that inconvenience to neutral trade
would be minimized by the discretion
left to the courts in the application of
| the order in council and by the in
| structions which it was said would be
| issued to the administrative and other
authorities having to do with the exc
cution of the so-called blockade
| measures, this government is now
forced to the realization that its ex-
| pectations, which were fully set forth
| in its note of March 80, were based on
a misconception of the intentions of
the British government Desiring to
avoid controversy and in the expecta-
ton that the administrati ton of the or
der in council would conform to the
established rules of international law.
this government has until now reserved
| the question of the actual validity OF
| the order in council OF March II, in so
| Tar as 1t is considered by the povern-
rnent Of Great Britain to establish a
! blockade within the meaning of that
term as understood IN the law and
practices of nations; but in the cfrcurn-
stances now developed it feels that it
can no longer permit the validity of
| the alleged blockade to remain nm
| challenged"
| 1s) Pointing out that in accordance
| with the declaration of Paris in 1886.
| the effectiveness Of a blockade is
| "manifestly a question of fact" the
United States says 1t is common
knowledge that the German coasts are
| open to trade with the Scandinavian
countries. The recent placing of cot
| ton on the British list of contraband ia
| spoken of as making 1T appear that the
British government themselves have
| been forced to the conclusion that the
| blockade is ineffective to prevent shin
ments of cotton from reaching their
enemies. or else that they are doubtful
as to the legality of the form of block
| ade which they have sought to main
| tain"
Blockade Must Be Impartial.
| (20) Decisions are cited to show that
it is an essential principle. universally
accepted, that a blockade must apply
! impartialIy to the ships of all nations.
and 1T is added that of beIligerents
| themselves trade with blockaded ports"
| the principle in the past has been that
| they cannot be regarded as effectively
| blockaded. These decisions are referred
| to since 1T is a matter Of common
| knowledge that Great Britain exports
and re-exports large quantities of mer-
| chandise to Norway, Sweden, Denmark k
| and Holland. whose ports, far as
| American commerce is concerned she
| regards as blockaded."
| CID The principles of the laws of ma
| tions, which forbid the blockade OF neu-
| trail ports in time of war, embodied in
| that part of the declaration Of London
| adopted by Great Britain as to block
| ade, are discussed, and several deci-
| sions of the British prize courts prior
| to the present war as well as the Mata-
moras cases in the American civil war
are recalled to support the contention
of the United States.
|