The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-08-11
outlet for some of the Industrial dis

outlet for some of the industrial dis
tricts of Germany. It seems, accord
ingly, that if it be recognized that
blockade is in certain cases the ap-
propriate method Of intercepting the
trade of an enemy country, and If the
blockade can only become effective
by extending it to enemy commerce
passing through neutral ports, such
an extension is defensible and in &C
cordance with principles which have
met with general acceptance"
The note then refers to the case of
the British ship Springbok, seized by
the United States cruisers during the
civil war, bound for the British West
Indies, because her cargo, it was
charged, was to be transshlpped to
the Confederate States.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States sustained the seizure against
the condemnation Of group of
prominent lawyers, although the
United States and British govern
ments took the broader view and rec
ognized the development of older
methods of blockade. No protest
was made by Great Britain.
What is really important in the
general interest says the note, "is
that adaptations of old rules should
not be made unless they are consist
ent 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 conditions 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 interfering with no
goods with which we should be en-
titled to interfere by blockade if the
geographical position and the condi-
tions of Germany at present were
such that her commerce passed
through her own ports.
"We are taking the utmost pos.
sible care, not to interfere with COM
merce genuinely destined for or
proceeding from neutral countries.
Furthermore, we have tempered the
severity with which our measures
might press upon neutrals by not ap-
plying 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 reviews at some length
various forms in which blockades
have been maintained to show there
has been no uniformity Of practice in
essential points, and declares "the
one principle which is fundamental
and has obtained universal recogni-
tion is that by means of blockade a
belligerent is entitled to cut off by ef-
fective means the sea-borne com
merce Of his enemy"
Consequently, Sir Edward argues,
it is impossible to maintain that the
right of a belligerent to intercept the
commerce of his enemy can be limited
in the way suggested in the Ameri-
can notes on the subject. 'fThere are
many cases." he says, Gin which
proofs that the goods were enemy
property would afford strong evi.
denceH that they were of enemy origin
or enemy destination and it is only
in such cases that we are OBTAINING
them. Where proof of enemyowner-
ship would afford no evidence Of such
origin or destination we are not in
practice Of OBTAINING the goods
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. eve
shall continue" he says, '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
replies to the American caveat giving
notice that the United States would
not recognize the orders in council
in lieu of international law, Sir ed
ward Grey writes he does mot un-
derstand to what divergence Of views
as to the principles Of law applica-
BILE in cases before the prize court,
the government of the United States
refers, for am not aware of any diff
ferences existing between the two
countries as to the principles Of law
Applicable in cases before such
courts"
Sir Edward compares the rules
governing British prize courts to the
rules applied by American courts,
referring especially. to the American
case of the Amy Warwick before the
United States Supreme Court, where
it was held that "prize courts are
subject to the instructions OF their
own sovereign. In the absence OF
such instructions their jurisdiction
and rules Of decision are to be ascer-
tanned by reference to the known
powers of such tribunals and the
principle by which they are governed
under the public law and the practice
Of nations. It wonld appear, there
fore, that the principles applied by
the prize courts Of two countries are
identical"
The supplemental note then pro-
eeeds to demonstrate the practicable
ty of prize court being governed by
international law at the same time by
municipal law in the form of orders
in council. It finally comes to the
case of the steamer Zamora, in the
presen. war. The British court de-
clared 'sthe nations of the world need
not be apprehensive that orders in
council will emanate from the gov
ernment Of this country in such viola
ton of the acknowledged laws OF
nations that it is conceivable that
our prize tribunal, holding the law
of nations in reverence would fee!
called upon to disregard and refuse
obedience to the provisions OF such
orders"
Sir Edward then points out that
the legality of orders in council or
for measures taken under them, have
not yet been brought to decision
in prize court, but he reminds the
United States that ''it is open to any
United States citizen whose claim is
before the prize court to contend
that any order in council which may
', To-, ic cictpOt with