The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-04-02

II
how can she? The German subma-
lrine warfare makes this practically
impossible. She has the alternative,
to be sure, Of abandoning her block
ade campaign and relying solely on
the principles of contraband and
noncontraband shipping; but it is
asking a great deal of a nation in
her life-and-death struggle to forego
the advantage of blockade cam
paign, simply because developments
over which she had no control have
rendered the regulations governing
a blockade obsolete for all practical
purposes.
| This seems an occasion--if there
is ever one-for the application of
the rule of reason" A blockade of
the only sort possible under the new
conditions would extend quite dis
lance at sea; if frankly declared, it
could, with good conscience, detain
all shipping of German destination,
, ownership or originals permitted UNI
der the accepted principles of block
ade. But it could not, under any
circumstances, go so far as to put
stop to such inter-neutral shipping
as CHANGED to cross it's extended
radius of action would necessarily
suppose some interference with neu-
trail shipping-to the extent of chal-
lenge and examination of such ships
as entered the radius; but the rule
could not be stretched to compre
shipping or an arbitrary disposal of
cargoes and vessels. This is clear
outside not only of the accepted
principles of blockade, but such rea
sonable expansion of those principles
as here outlined. 1t is the most con-
spicuously unjustifiable feature con-
tanned in the British Order-of- Coun-
Gil.
If Great Britain were willing to
forego this indefensible point the
aspect of the affair would be less
hopeless. In the extremity that dip
lomatic changes have reached
with every appearance of hopeless
deadlock-it is doubtful if the |
United States could find better re-
course now for saving her face and |
of what she is after, than |
to manifest a willingness for the APP |
plication of some such rule of rea-
SON." This would suppose, however,
on England's part, an open declara-
ton of blockade; the confinement of
her radius of action within as
narrow limits as practicable;
the guarantee of the minimum
of interference with such inter
neutral shipping as necessarily
entered that radius, and, fl
nally-in return for the concession
implied by the rule of reason
she would be expected to forego, as
under the present arrangement, the
right Of confscation of noncontra-
band goods even when destined for
an enemy's port.
Under such an arrangement COM
merce with the neutral countries
contiguous to Germany could pro-
ceed-with some interference, to be |
sure, but it could proceed, whereas
under the conditions outlined in the |
Order-of-Council it will be harassed |
out of existence. Under that order
there can be no neutral commerce
in. European or Mediterranean wa
ters-a condition the bare state
ment of which shrieks it's justice. |
Moreover, it need not be supposed |
that that injustice is any more |
pleasing to the English mind than |
it is to our own. Both Sir Edward |
Grey and Mr.. Asquith have plainly |
intimated the distastefulness of the |
procedure and sought to justify it
only on the necessity plea and re-
prisals; its justification, under the
opinions in international law that |
'reprisals must be proportionate"
At all events there is reason to
believe that England would not
spurn an arrangement that accom-
plished her purpose, at the same |
time that it satifies the legal rights
of neutrals. The United States, be-
ing the most powerful, is properly |
the spokesman for those neutrals. |
Moreover, in the chaotic conditions
prevailing, she has discretionary
power of declaring how those rights
can best be served. This is her
privilege and her duty. 1t may be
that through the application of the
rule of reason" the United States |
may find for herself and the other
neutral nations, way out of a diff
Guilty that appears insoluble on the
stricter footing.-Louisville Courier
Journal.