The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1915-07-31
Doing as United States Did.

When the United States became
more or less exercised because a
British captain had seen fit to fly the
American flag over his merchant
ship, and when there was talk Of
vigorous protest, there rose up before
us an embarrassing fact. The United
States had done the same thing. Dur
ing some of our wars We flew foreign
flags. So the contemplated strenuous
protest lost some of it's apparent
force.
Now, when the United States or
the Southern section of the United
States, is getting mad at Great
Britain because of her seizures on the
high seas, We are again confronted
by some more or less embarrassing
facts. Great Britain is stopping ship
ments destined for neutral ports. al
leging that these shipments were in
tended ultimately for German use.
Many people in the South want to do
something, but don't know exactly
what to do. There is talk of an en-
barge, but this talk is scarcely the
product of sober thought There is
talk of defying Great Britain, but
this is only talk. Even the men who
INDUCED in pepperish statements will
admit that it would be folly to throw
friendly diplomacy to the winds, and
plunge in with gloves off. What is
the sense in making unfortunate mat
ters worse? There is no question of
national honor, or national safety,
involved. There is a question of ma
tional interest. But our interests
will be served much better by friend
ly discussion and settlement, than by
a mailed fist.
But coming back to an embarrass-
ing phase of the muddled question:
1t was during our war between the
States, that our courts condemned
cargoes consigned to Nassau and
other West Indian ports or to Mata-
moras, Mexico, on the ground that
they were to be transhipped to
blockade runners or sent overland for
the use of the Confederacy.' This
doctrine Of continuous voyage was
first applied on a vastly extended
scale by the United States. The Unit
ed States applied it to BLOCKADE
as well as to contraband. Decisions
of the American courts on cases such
as these caused much unofficial pro-
test in Europe, but no official protest
was entered by the British govern
ment.
Isn't Great Britain today doing
very much the same as the United
States did in the COS? 1t is a moot
ed question as to the applicability of
this principle to noncontraband, and
cotton is not yet contraband. The
applicability of the principle to block
ade may also be a question for argu-
, ment. But at worst, it is a question
for argument, and not for fight, GER
tainly for the time being.
But" you say, "the Declaration
of London says that raw cotton is
not to be considered contraband, and
what of that? Quite so, but has the
Declaration of London been sanction
ed? Furthermore, preceding the
free list is this statement: "Arti-
cles and materials not susceI tiple OF
use in war are not to be declared
contraband of war" Then comes
the naming of raw cotton, wool and
many other articles. But we know
very well that cotton is susceptible
of use for war" 1t is necessary for
the me King of explosives, and on this
ground Great Britain could very
probably declare it contraband, and
be sustained by any fair court in the
declaration. That would narrow the
continuous voyage issue to CONTRA
band, and would make it necessary
only for Great Britain to show that
the ultimate destination of the cargo
was Germany or one Of Germary's
allies.
Great Britain has sought in the in
terest of the United States to keep
cotton off the cOntraband list. Great
Britain is doing what the United
States has done and would do again
taking every possible legal advan-
tase of an enemy. AS individuals
we may kick. Some men of the
South may wish to see an embargo,