Valdez daily prospector., 1915-01-15
FRIDAY, JANUARY Is, 1915.
THE BRITISH VIEW.

teen guineas per cent.-$75 on $500 =
for an insurance policy collectible Gin
the event of a declaration of war
within twelve months from date" At
Lloyd's they will insure you against
anything. They will write policy
against an earthquake on any given
day, against failure OF the sun to rise
or set, against the coming of his
Imperial Majesty of Germany to pay
holiday visit to King George. The
improbability of these happenings is
no greater, or wilder, than the occ IT.
ence of war between the United
States and Great Britain, especially a
war resulting from the position we
have taken in respect to searches and
seizures of our cargoes at sea- 1t IS
surprising that the London newspd-
pers have made so much of the note
of instructions dispatched to A bas-
sador Page. Notes of similar purpose
and tenor fill much space in the arch
ives of every foreign office. In War
time they are quite the usual thing,
and in the pote cabled to Mr.. Page
by our STATE Department, so far as It's
contents have been disclosed, there
was no new doctrine laid down, no
right asserted that Great Britain
would not set up for herself and
should respect when set up by Others.
There was no unfriendliness of tone
and nothing that could be construed
as a threat.
The comments of the British press
indicate that there is some little mis-
understanding of the subject. The
London Times, for. instance, while
declaring that "the note breathes
throughout an mistaken faith in our
sense of justice" trust that Great
Britain will do it's best to preserve,
has this to say about the seizure of
foodstuffs, which are only conditional
contraband:
ut is said that we do not sufficient
ly regard the legal presumption of
innocent use in favor of such cargoes
when consigned from one neutral
act on the mere belief that, although
not intended by the shippers for the
enemy, they will ultimately reach his
hands. Here again we ask, Does
;x,;o hot &C
of the kind are not imposed upon us
by that principle of self-preservation
which they so fully acknowledge"
The question of our London name
sake finds it's answer in innumerab,e
decisions of British courts, in the
works of it's text writer's on interna-
tional law, and in the diplomatic
communications of it's foreign office.
During the Boer war question arose
out of the seizure of two British ships
for supposed violation of the law
forbidding trade with the enemy. In
the correspondence the position of
Great Britain was thus laid down by
Lord Salisbury:
"Foodstuffs, with a hostile destina-
ton, can be considered contraband of
war only if they are supplies for the
enemy's forces. 1t is not sufficient
that they are capable of being so
used, it must be shown that this was
in fact their destination at the time
of seizure"
That is the American position, it is
perfectly we'll known that it has been
the British position. And the rule in
respect to foodstuffs destined for the
enemy's country, though not for the
enemy's armed forces, applies to car
goes of absolute contraband with a
neutral destination. Seizure cannot
be justified on the mere surmise that
after reaching its neutral destination
the cargo is to be transshipped to an
enemy country. There must be proof
clear and decisive" Enemy destina-
ton must be shown-otherwise seiz-
ure or detention is unwarrantable IN
reference with neutral commerce, for
which, on proof of the fact, compen-
sation must be made. There will of
necessity be a multitude of claims Of
this nature coming up for adjudica-
ton at the close of the war. The
principle of compensation for unwar-
ranted interference Is frankly admit
ted in England, but damages do not
constitute full compensation for the
injury to commerce. The purpose Of
our note is to notify the British gov
eminent that it will be expected Io