The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-05
THE ISSUE WITH ENGLAND.
Intelligent Discussion Of the Prece-
dents Of Our Own Civil War.

@Oss" W WI W WIN "obs
To THE EDITOR OF THE suN-Sir;
Thank you for your editorial article on
The Issue With England" 1t clearly
represents the facts relative to the
United States protest. Yet there are
several points which lack Of space for
bids you to mention but which complete
the case Of Great Britain. That nation
cannot enforce a blockade in the Baltic
except by violating the neutrality of
Sweden or Denmark. This she may not
do. The United States might have sus-
tained the freedom Of the seas by TAX
ing Nassau; Great Britain might sus-
Jain that freedom by entering Holland.
but ~blockadlng Is considered a more de-
feasible action. Similarly blockadlng the
Baltic from the outside Is more In &C.
cord with precedent than entering the
Baltic, which cannot be invaded with
out a violation OF neutrality. The
North in the civil war did not blockade
the line OF the Rio Grande.
You did not mention that Great Brit
ain has limited her blockade to the
area defined by her, while the United
States most justifably went outside and
took British ships. You did not say that
England had no means Of redress but
TO lake ships on their way to neutrals,
whereas the United States could hold up
the transit of goods when they reached
the blockaded area and did not abso-
lutely have to PROFOUND the celebrated
continuous voyage doctrine n seize
ships on the way to Nassau.
once goods are In Holland, Great
Britain has no chance OF keeping them
from Germany. except the vigilance OF
Holland supplies 1t. Nor did you add
that the United States without notice
extended Its blockading activity outside
the defined area into areas not surround
ing the land OF the enemy. Thus a
vessel OF Great Britain was seized be-
tween Porto Rico and Culebra and was
later condemned by the Supreme Court.
So Great Britain has a precedent for
declaring a blockade away from the
enemy's littoral.
The only excuse the United states had
for Its exterior blockade was the inefi-
cheney OF that established along the
enemy's coast. So also the only excuse
Great Britain has is that she Is unable
to maintain a blockade along the i'm
mediate coast line OF the enemy. II is
not a paper" blockade: it is a very
successful and ironclad affair, but II has
the same degree of invalidity as had
that which the United States practically
established in the West Indies during
the war with the South.
i venture to disagree with you when
you say that the issues INVOLVE no prac-
teal probability OF war;" for there is a
degree OF madness in American ciyiliza-
ton which makes many things possible.
| left England many years ago, so l
am not qualified to judge OF the essen
tial mental soundness OF her people. but
what l read and see leads me to believe
that the British have a similar softenlng
of the brain.
In Bayonne those who defended prop
erty are imprisoned. those who refused
10 defend II are threatened with i'm
~prlsonment, those who assailed both II
and the guardians Of 1t are allowed to
go scot free. because they do not speak
English and must not be subjected to the
spiritual degradation Of Imprisonment. az
Miss X. b. Davis would say. In this
war. then. the British should be Jailed.
the American people with difficulty par
doned. and the Germans. who are not to
be blamed for not knowing better. should
be allowed to do as they please. The
punishment should be in the inverse
order OF deserving. However. let me add
that l am disposed to be benevolent and
neutral in the Bayuune affair, for | be-
lleve there are reasons to Jail the riot
ers, the Rockefeller deputies. tho police
men who refused to do their duty and
also Sheriff Kinkead, who alternately
neglected and exceeded the duties Of his
office.
Being a human monstroslty. a hy-
~phenated American, ! sign myself with
apologies AN AN0Lo-AMERIcAN.
BRooKLrN, August 2.