Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1915-08-06
which blockade running could be IA
The American Case.

cilitated."
The American Case.
Your excellency will no doubt re-
member" wrote Sir Edward, "how II
order to meet this new difficulty, the
old principle relative to contrabant
and blockade were developed and the
/ doctrine Of continuous voyage was
applied and enforced under which
goods destined for the enemy territory
were intercepted before they reached
the neutral ports from which they
were to be re-exported.
'-The difficulties which imposed up
on the United States the necessity Of
re-shaping some Of the old rules are
somewhat akin to those with which
the allies are now facing in dealing
with the trade Of their enemy. Ada.
cent to Germany are various neutral
countries which afford her convenient
opportunities for carrying on her
trade with foreign countries. Her
own territories are covered with a
network Of railways and waterways,
which enable her commerce to pass
as conveniently through ports in such
neutral countries as through her own.
A blockade limited to enemy ports
would leave open routes by which ev-
cry kind Of German commerce could
pass almost as easily as through the
ports in her own territory.
Rotterdam Is indeed the nearest
outlet for some Of the industrial dis
tricts Of Germany. :. 1t seems
accordingly, that II it be recognized
that a blockade Is in certain cases the
appropriate method Of intercepting the
trade of an enemy country, and II the
blockade can only be effective by ex-
tending it to enemy commerce pass
ing through neutral ports, such an ex-
tension is defensible and in accord
ance with principles which have met
with general acceptance"
springbok Case.
The note then refers to the case of
the British ship Springbok, seized by
United States cruisers during the civil
war, while bound for the British West
Indies, because her cargo, 1t was
charged, was to be trans-shipped to
the Confederate states. The supreme
court Of the United States sustained
the seizure against the condemnation
of group Of prominent international
lawyers, although the United States
and British governments took the
broader view and recognized the de-
velopment of the oldest method of
blockade. No protest was made by
Great Britain.
What Is really important, in the
general interest" says the note, "is
that adaptations OF the old rules
should not be made unless they are
consistent with the general principle
upon which an admitted belligerent
right is based. It is also essential that
all unnecessary injury to neutrals
should be avoided. With these condi-
tions it may be safely affirmed that
the steps we are taking to intercept
commodities on their way to and from
Germany fully comply. We are inter-
fering with no goods with which we
should not be entitled to interfere by
blockade, If the geographical position
and the conditions Of Germany at
present were such that her commerce
passed through her own ports. We
are taking the utmoNt possible care
not to interfere with commerce gen.
uinely destined for or proceeding from
neutral countries. Furthermore, we
have tempered the severity with which
our measures might press upon the
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 condemnation"
The note then reviews at some
length the various forms in which
blockades have been maintained to
show that there has been no uniform
ity Of practice in very essential points.
and declares:
Fundamental Principle.
"The one principle which is funda-
mental and has obtained universal
recognition, is that by means Of block
ade, a belligerent Is entitled to cut of
by effective means the sea-borne COM
merce Of his enemy"
Consequently, Sir Edward argues, II
is impossible to maintain that the
right Of q belligerent to intercept the
commerce Of his enemy can be limit
ed in the way suggested in the Amer
lean notes on the subject.
There are many cases." he said
"in which proofs that the goods were
enemy property would afford strong
evidence that they were Of enemy ORR
gin or enemy destination, and 1t is
only in such cases that we are detain-
ing them. Where proof Of enemy
ownership would afford no evidence
of such origin or destination, we are
not in practice Of OBTAINING the
goods"
Continue Measures.
Sir Edwards note closes with the
observation that figures Of recent
months show that the increased op.
portunities afforded by the war for
American commerce have more than
compensated for the loss Of the Ger.
man and Austrian markets.
We shall continue to apply
these measures with every desire to
occasion the least possible amount of
inconvenience to persons engaged in
legitimate commerce"
In the supplemental note, which is
a reply to the American caveat giving
notice that the United States would
not recognize the orders in council in
lieu Of international law, Sir Edward
writes he does mot understand to
what divergence Of views as to the
principles of law applicable in cases
before the prize court the government
Of the United States refers, for 1 am
not aware Of any difference existing
between the two countries as to the
principles of law applicable in cases