The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-07-18

To the Editor of The Herald: The writer would like to make a few comments on the statement of MT. Ket tig relative to the cotton situation and the editorial remarks thereon in recent issue of The Age Herald. There is no doubt that some of the regulations promulgated by England | relative to commerce with neutral countries are in violation of interna- | rional law. Some of the regulations 1 relative to commerce with Germany are probably-if not violations of in- ternational law-at least rather ex- | treme application of it's rules. England | Is maintaining what is to all intents ! and purposes a blockade of the ports of Germany against the rest of the world with the exception of the Scandi- navian countries. International law requires that a blockade be effective and the requirement is generally added that 1t shall be maintained by a suf- ficient number of ships stationed off the blockaded ports.
 England maintains the blockade by cordon of war vessels between Scot land and Norway and in the English channel. It is undoubtedly effective" The only question about it would arise from the distance at which the cor don of blockading vessels is main tained. It seems probable that, con sidering the geographical conditions, however this would be finally pro- nounced an effective" blockade within the meaning of international law. England. however, has not specifi- cally called it a blockade. Granting that it is an effective" blockade, she would have a perfect right to frankly call it such and probably her position under International law would be en- tirely correct.
 England has not yet placed cotton on the list of contraband. It is her privilege under international law to do so should she see fit. Each belliger- ent determines for itself what articles shall De classed as contraband. Cotton is the most desirable raw material for the manufacture ofztri nitro cellu- lose. which Is the basis of smok eless powder. It is reported that Germany is making tri-nitro-cellulose from wood fibre. No doubt this can be done, but it is probable that the process would be more expensive or the product of an inferior quality. Under
 
 strange that England has not declared cotton contraband.
 Her failure to call her blockade by its true name seems to arise from a desire to make it little burdensome to neutrals as possible. If she calls it blockade and her vessels capture a ship trying to slip through with for bidden articles on board. her prize courts would, in accordance with in- ternational law, proceed to confiscate both vessel and cargo. Instead of this, England refrains from calling her op- eration blockade and proposes, wherever she can do so consistently with her own interests, to purchase the cargoes of detained vessels and then let the vessels themselves go free. So, she is technically violating interna- tional law in order to make what Is really a blockade less burdensome to neutrals than otherwise 1t would be-
 Englands stand with reference to commerce with Scandinavian countries and Holland is technically not justi fled by international law. She just- fies her action on the ground that to cripple German commerce and to dim finish the sources of available sup plies to Germany Is a necessary meas ure of war. Her action in this re- spect probably exceeds the rights of any belligerent under international law. But there is at least this to be said in Englands behalf: That in en- forcing her regulations she has not murdered any women and children or other innocent noncombatants, nor | has she needlessly sacrificed the lives I or any combatants.
 During the civil war the United States invented the doctrine of "con- tinuous voyage" which means that ar ticles apparently destined to neutral countries but really finally intended for the use of the enemy, may be seized and confiscated. We not only set up this doctrine but we enforced it. and as result of our action. 1t Is ac cepted spart of the existing rules of l international law.
 | Now suppose the United States, in l trying to force England to permit us to ship cotton to Austria and Ger many (because. in plain language, that l is what MT. Kettig wants). we should place an embargo on the shipment of food and munitions to England. Eng land could immediately put cotton on the contraband list and apply our doc Urine of "continuous voyage" Her po- sition. under international law would then be entirely correct and We could