New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-09-18
Scrapping international Law.

In its comment on the British Prize
Courts momentous decision The London
Chronicle" said: "Sir Samuel Evans yes
terday by his judgment in the case Of the
four Scandinavian steamers carrying
cargoes of American meat products to
Scandinavian ports) embodied in the Eng
lsh prize law the much disputed doctrine
Of continuous transport That is put
ting the matter very tactfully and mildly.
Sir Samuel Evans did a good deal more
than embody in English prize law the doc
trine Of continuous voyage, as it was
understood and accepted before the war
in Europe began. He took up a principle
developed by the United States during
the Civil War and gave it an unprece-
douted extension which very nearly abol-
ishcs existing rights and privileges Of
neutral commerce.
Applying the continuous voyage doc
trine at the expense of the United States
may be looked upon in Great Britain as a
piece Of poetic justice 1t is so to a GER
tain extent We cannot run away from
cases. IN which our Supreme Court held
that British goods shipped to the Ba-
hamas were subject 10 seizure, even if it
was intended TO unload them there, if
their evident ultimate destination was
some blockaded port Of the Confederacy.
But Thursdays decision in the British
prize court goes a great deal further than
that. 1t practically extinguishes the dis-
tinction between contraband and non-con-
traband goods and removes all the limi-
tations hitherto put upon belligerents in
maintaining blockades Of enemy coasts
and ports.
The United States asserted the doctrine
Of continuous voyage in order to check
violations of an actual blockade. Our Su-
preme Court held that goods intended for
the Southern Confederacy could be seized
in transit TO a notorious base for blockade
runners near the Confederate coast line.
But it did not maintain that United States
war vessels could seize goods not mani
festly intended to run an established
blockade.
Our blockade stopped at the mouth Of
the Rio Grande. Consequently, in the
Matamoras cases it was decided that non
contraband goods could be imported freely
into Mexican ports contiguous to the
Texas border, the continuous voyage doc
trine not applying to such goods because
their ultimate destination could not be a
portion of enemy territory under bona
fde blockade.
The Supreme Court said in the Peter
hof case: Trade between London and
Matamoras. even with the intent to sup
ply, from Matamoras, goods to Texas, vio-
lated no blockade and cannot be declared
unlawful. Such trade, with unrestricted
inland commerce between such a port and
the enemy's territory, impairs undoubted-
IT,. and very seriously impairs, the value
of a blockade of the enemy's coast. But
in cases such as that now in judgment
wo administer the public law of nations
and are not at liberty to inquire what is
for the particular advantage or disadvan-
tage Of our own or another country"
Danish and Swedish ports are in exact
" the same situation in this war as Mat
amoras was. in our Civil War Thee is
no Allied blockade in the Baltic Sea and
communication between these two Sean
dinavian kingdoms and Germany is unin-
terrupted. Yet Great Britain assumes
the right TO stop commerce between the
l.
because non-contraband goods may reach
Germany after being delivered in those
countries.
No assertion of the continuous voyage
doctrine is necessary in the case of con-
traband. The logical position for Great
Britain to take would therefore be either
70 declare all goods contraband because
destined for the use Of the armed forces
of the enemy and 70 try TO enforce on all
neutrals complete non-intercourse with
the Central European group, or actually
20 blockade all German ports and then APP
ply the continuous voyage doctrine in ac-
cordance with existing international law.
The latter move is impractcabe from a
military point Of view. The former, while
practicable, involves a destructive rewrit-
ing Of the international law code and an
almost complete SCATTERING of the present
status Of neutrals.
Great Britain, in effect, is trying to re-
vive the commerce stranging edicts OF
the Napoleonic era, when the neutrals rad
become mere pawns in the struggle for
the mastery Of Europe. The United
States cannot consent TO the surrender of
all the guarantees of neutral freedom
won since 1915. 1t has protested against
the policy laid down in the British Orders
in Council and in the British prize courts.
II must continue to protest against them.