The Hawaiian gazette., 1915-06-01
THE CAsE REVIEWED


government had taken over todtself the food sup
p1v 70 subduc the enemy by starvation is one
Of the recognized methods of legitimate warfare,
However this may be, we have nothing 10 do with
the operations ct these Powers against each other,
/ and this and other similar episodes mentioned
only that 1t MA, he seen whether Germanys COM
plant OF our lnlctnu was justified, We had no
power to prey cit Great BritIihs action, and II
is at least huultiul il we had any right to object
| to it. We cuuId NO doubt, have brought pressure
to bear against 1t by an embargo upon our trade
with her or otherwise Not only were under
no obligation to do this, but it would have been
a breach Of neutrality. .s'.
"rebruary = Germany proclaimed her war-zone
policy in substance that all enemy merchant ships
I'm the water, surrounding Great Britain and
France would be destroyed, at sight as 1t turned
out.'eveu if it IS impossible to avert danger
which threaten the crew ndipassengers'-with
broad intimaon that neutraltshipS were liable to
share the same fate. This decree was, on its face
an attempt t. cut of the worlds trade from trca;
Britain as she isolating Germany, and as o.
piouSly il could rOt be executed by the German
navy, to tcrror1zc the world into compliance by
threatening de~ructiou By invisible agencies, tho
mine and submarine, to all merchant ships APP
bproaching or leaving British ports. 1t is imrus-
sible TO doubt that an incidental purpose =
efnbrt1i the neutral nations, especially the United
States, in trouble with Great Britain or to over
look the fact that Germany was thus deliberately
seeking to gain cOmpensating advantage for her
nferioritv the sea by methods outside the pale
lof legitimate Indeed this is practically CON
fressed in the diplomatic correspondence ami
sought TO be justified on the ground of necessity.
This policy has now eliminated after the destruc-
ltion of many other incOnSpicuOuS ships and lives
in the Lusitania tragedy.
1T was charged by Germany, in justification of the
war4zone, that British merchant vessels we're using
neutral flag. and armed against submarines
doubtless Germany has not forgotten that the Iu>t
tanla up the Irish sea in February under the
| ~: =
say that long before her destruction She had been
stripped. at instance, of such slight armament as
she ever carried. and when attacked bore her own
cQlors, IN broad daylight, plainly open to view.
"Ibe international character of the war-zone pro,
oeediug longer, if it was open to discus
sion. In the coolest legal view 1t amounted TO 4
declaration OF Upon the commerce of the world
1t was conceived i'll violation of the plaines internal
Ona Obligations, and is now executed by acts which
tine law would Stlgmatze as piracy and murder but
for the single circumstance that they are done under
the authority of sovereign nation. y
"MarCh Is Great Britain in pursuance of her pol
icy of isolatng Germany, and a further avowed
measure Of retaliation against the methods by which
Germany conducting the war. declared block
adc by Gordon of the German coast This was an
innovation in the law of nations, which remains to
be justified fundamental rule of blockade is that
ut must be made effective, and, las heretofore prac-
t,cd by barring each blockaded port at its mouth
| ms cannot be done where mines and submarines
arc active, and so Great Britain attempts blockade
by drawing Gordon Of ships about the enenys coast
outside the immediate field of mine and submarine
activity. AS the law Of nations is IN evolution from
their praCtiseS, which change from time to time with
ne progress of events. if Great Britain can make her
,tN .ut good she may have effected modification
'o the law which may ultimately be accepted. 1t is
liable seriously to affect neutral trade. Our protest
against was much more than formal, and it fulfilled
AMY obligation of ours TO ({trnany in the premises.
! h1E fhprty
US ;Ilt We are supplying Great Britain and the al
Inc, with arms and ammunition well as food,
N hatcvcr may be said of the ethical aspect of
position, it is strictly within the rights of neutral
trade, AMI moreover, an embargo upon this traffic
would i brea IF neutrality for which the allies
= uuI u us to account The trouble with Germany
thu, ner own is gored. Her navy is not strong
nOugN 10 protect her commerce, while that of
treat Britain is, and her supplies off, while
enemy's remain free. We are i'll no degree re-
;ponsble for this. If merchant ships were finding
tadv access to German ports under protection
adequate navy this complaint would not be heard of,
md Germany would be one of our largest customers.
IL Looking at the course of Germany S maritime OPP
rations in perspective it is impossible not to the
iue the labyrinth Of diitcuues-lt is unnecessary
Stigmatze them by eprthes which suggest them
| ehcS-In which she has involved herself, 1t is in
yer desperate determination to get even with Great
Britain for the superiority OF her navy AS she could
not hold her with Great Britain in open warfare
IN the open seas, otherwise deprive her Of the
rgitimate advantages of her naval supremacy, she
dOne--what she has done,
| Nc one point and one only does Germanys con-
dua appear to show favorabIy by that of Great Br-
tan and this is more apparent than real. February
20 we proposed by identic note to both powersp
mUdus vivendi that each should cease the OF
neutral flags, floating mines anywhere or anchored
mines on the high seas, submarines except to en-
force visit and search and that American foods for
Germany should be deIN cred there by American
-cnrinln1ta nnlA En Tins Germany