New-York tribune., 1915-02-21
Food Contraband and the Wilhel'
nina Case.

There can be no reasonable dissent from SIR
Edward Crews main argument in his note OF
Friday in reference to the Wilhemina case. The
British Foreign Secretary admits that up 10 the
present Great Britain has not actually declared
contraband food supplies forwarded to German!
from neutral nation and intended eNciuSiNe!
for the use Of the civilian population. lie theFe-
fore fully comedies the propriety of the inquiries
made by this government on behalf OF the owners
of the Wilhelmina's cargo.
That cargo would not have been detained olr
Edward Grey intimates, except for the change
in the situation created by the decree Of the Ger
man Federal Council of January 20 last Inc
Federal Council ordered the taking over by the
German government Of all grain and foodStufs
then in Germany. 1t also directed that gram ana
flour imported into Germany after January 81
should be deliverable only to agencies under gov
,.nmental control That order played dTecty
into Great Britans hand by obscuring, II not
obterating, the normal distinction between food
imports intended for the use of civilians and
those intended for the use of the military.
Subsequently, when the full effect OF the order
was realized, it was repealed so far as to allow
food imports to come in consigned to private IN
dividuals or firms. The government, moreover
pledged itself TO guarantee under neutral super
VISION. the distribution of the imported supplies
10 civilian consumers. But the value and pract-
cabilitv Of this guarantee remain open to ques-
ton. The decree in itself certainly modified the
contraband status Of foods sent into Germany.
The British government is therefore fully JuSt-
fed in asking prize court 20 decide how TAR the
ostensible exemption of imported supplies clears
Germany Of the charge of having set up gen
eral government monopoly of foodstuffs
The United States does not dispute Great Brit,
aims right to carry into her prize courts all ques-
tions relating to trade in contraband. If the
rrze courts give decisions which do not satisfy
us. we still have d recourse in diplomatic protest
and arbitration. As a neutral, we demand moth
ing more than an observance Of the existing rules
of international law. We have warned Germany
that We expect such treatment III case American
ships continue 20 travel through the so-called
"war zone" to British ports, as they have per-
feet right to do We count on Great Britain for
an equally loyal acknowledgment of neutral
rights.
As Sir Edward Grey suggests, British opinion
has been sorely tried by the many violations OF
the rules Of war Of which Germany has beer
guilty Nevertheless, it would be mistake from
the broader view Of national honor and policy
for Great Britain to consider lowering herself
TO Germany level. The closing paragraph OF
the Wihelmina note seems TO suggest that Grea
Britain may decide to treat the existing inter
national code partially or wholly abrogateC
because of German practices. Great Britain is
fully entitled to take measures Of reprisal d
rected against Germany. But so far neutrals
are concerned, there should be no abrogstiOn OF
the existing rules Of international law 10y either
belligerent Each government ought to be glaC
TO let the other bear alone the odium of a delib
crate disregard of neutral rights, Neutral ma
tions whose legitimate interests are dsregardeC
cannot be expected to accept an excuse from
either belligerent The charge that the other broke
the law of nations first.