The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-04-06

t1it q biothdut Oi an cueIlN s ports aha coasts and to capture and condemn any vessel taken in trying to break the blockade It is even conceded the right to detain and take to it's own ports Tor Judicial examination all vessels which it suspects for substantial req sons to be engaged in unneutral or con- traband service and to condemn them if the suspicion is sustained But such rights, long clearly defined both in doc trlne and practice, have hitherto been held to be the only permissible excep- tions to the principle of universal equal ity of sovereignty on the high seas as between belligerents and nations not engaged in war
 Tt is confidently assumed that his
 maJesty's government will not deny | that 1t is a rule sanctioned by gen eraf practice that, even though block ade should exist and the doctrine of
 contraband as to unblockaded terri
 tory be risidly enforced, innocent ship
 nents may be freely transported to and from the United States through
 neutral countries to belligerent terri tory without being subject to the pen alties of contraband traffic or breach
 or blockade, much less to detention, requisition or confscation.
 Moreover the rules of the declar- alton of Paris of 1S56-among them
 that free ships make free goodwill
 hardly at this day be disputed by the sishatories of that solemn agreement Has Held These Rights
 His majesty's government, like the
 government of the limited States hove
 often. and explicitly held that these rights represent the best usages of warfare in the dealings of belligerents with neutrals at sea. In this connec-
 lion l desire to direct attention to the min ~f | United States in the case of the Peter
 hof, which arose out of the civil war, and to the fact that that opinion was unanimously sustained in the award of the arbitration commission of 1871, to Which the case was presented at the request of Great Britain. From that time to the declaration of London of 1889, adopted with notifications by the order in council on the 23d of October,
 last, these rights have not been seri-
 ously questioned by the British gov ernment. And no claim on the part of
 Great Britain of any justification for interfering with these clear rights of | the United States and it's citizens as neutrals could be admitted. To admit 1t would be to assume an attitude of unneutrality toward the present ene- mics of Great Britain which would be obviously inconsistent with the solemn obligations of this government in the present circumstances; and for Great Britain to make such claim would be for her to abandon and set at naught the principles for which she has con sistently and earnestly contended in other times and circumstances
 "The note of his majesty's prin- cipal secretary of state for foreign af- fairs which accompanies the order in council and which bears the same date, notifies the government of the United States of the establishment of a block : ade which is, if defined by the terms
 of the order in council, to include all
 the coasts and ports of Germaf>S and every port of possible access to enemy
 territory. But the novel and quite un- precedented feature of that blockade, if
 We are to assume it to be properly SC defined, is that it embraces many neu- tra1 ports and coasts, bars access to them, and subjects all neutral ships seeking to approach them to the same suspicion that would attach to them where they are bound for the ports of enemies of Great Britain and to un-
 usual risks and penalties.
 Tt is manifest that such limitations, risks and liabilities placed upon the ships of 8 neutral power on the high seas, beyond the right of visit and search and the right to prevent the shipment of contraband already re- ferred to, are a distinct invasion of the sovereign rights of the nation whose ships trade, or commerce is in terfered with.
 Not Oblivious to Changes
 "The government of the United States is of course not oblivious4 to the great changes which have occurred in the con- ditions and means of naval warfare since
 Continued on Page TwO)