The Colorado statesman., 1915-08-07
Reject ALL U. S. CLAIMS
BRITISH NOTE CITES AMERICAN
ACTION IN CIVIL WAR.
Enslands Replies to Last American
Note Denies That Orders in
Council Are Illegal.

western newspaper Union news SerNlce-
Washington. - Great Britain's re-
plies to the latest American represen-
tations against interference with neu-
trail commerce reject entirely the con-
tention that the orders in council are
illegal and justify the British course
as being wholly within international
law. "Unsustainable either in point
of law or upon principles of interna-
tional policy" is the British reply to
the American protest against the
blockade of neutral ports, with an in
vitation to submit to international ar
bitration any cases in which the
United States is dissatisfied with the
action of British prize courts.
Great Britain's reply, embodied in
two notes, one supplemental, was
made public here Tuesday night and
| in London simultaneously by agree
ment between the two governments.
| With the notes was made public also
| the correspondence over the American
| steamer Neches, seized by the British
| while en- route from Rotterdam to the
| United States with goods of German
origin. All the correspondence aggre-
gates 1000 words.
Changed conditions of warfare, the
British note contends. require a new
application of the principles of inter
national law. The advent of the sub
marine, the airship and the alleged
atrocities by German troops in Bel
GUM are cited as justification for the
excise of extreme measures.
The blockade is justified on the con
tention that the universally recognized
| fundamental principle of a blockade
is that belligerent is entitled to cut
off by effective means the sea-borne
commerce of his enemy"
The note reiterates that Great Bri
tain will continue to apply the orders
complained of, although not without
every effort to avoid embarrassment
to neutrals and observes that the
American statistics show that any loss
in trade with Germany and Austria
has been more than overbalanced by
the increase of other industrial activ
tiles due to the war.
In the general reply to the Amer
lean representations against the or
ders in council, Sir Edward Grey, tn,
foreign minister, addressing Ambassa
dor Page, begins by expressing tn,
hope that he may be able to convinc,
the administration in Washington
that the measures we have an
nounced are not only reasonable ant
necessary in themselves, but consti
tute no more than an adaptation O
the old principles of blockade to tn
peculiar circumstances with which w
are confronted" e1
81 need scarcely dwell" wrote 81
Edward, ION the obligations incun
bent upon the allies to take every ste
in their power to overcome their CON
mon enemy in view of the SHOCKING
violation of the recognized rules an
principles of civilized warfare O
which he has been guilty during tn
present struggle"
Sir Edward then refers to atrocitie
in Belgium, poisoning of wells in Ger
man Southwest Africa, use of poison
GUS gases against the allied troops II
Flanders, and finally the sinking O
the Lusitania, to show chow indispen
sable it is that we should leave un
used no justifiable method of defend
ing ourselves"
Sir Edward Grey then refers to tn,
American Civil War blockade of 800,
miles of coast with small number O
vessels. and recalls how the United
States finally took recourse to block
aiding "neighboring neutral territor,
which afforded convenient center,
from which contraband could be intro
duced into confederate territory ant
from which blockade running could b,
facilitated"
The note then refers to the case o
the British ship Springbok, seized b,
United States cruisers during the
Civil War while bound for the British
West Indies, because her cargo, it was
charged, was to be transshipped to the
confederate states. The Supreme
Court of the United States sustained
the seizure against the condemnation
of group of prominent internationa
lawyers.