New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-11-08

,ral trade"
The practice Of requiring con
.irnor 10 prove that his shipments are
not bound 20 an enemy Of Great Brlt-
ain. even when articles are on the en-
barge list Of the neutral country TO
which they are destined. IS character.
ized as "harassing 20 neutral traders.
Time for Leniency Over.
While the United States government
twas 40 first inclined to view with len
icncy the British measures which were
termed in the correspondence. but not
in the Order I'm Council Of March II. "A
blockade because Of the assurances OF
the British government that inconven-
ierce TO neutral trade would be mini
m.zcl b. the discretion left 10 the
courts in the application Of the Order
in Council and By the instructions
which 10 waC said would be issued to
the administrative and other author.
ties having 70 do with the execution of
the so-called blockade measures, this
government is now forced to the reali-
zation that its expectations. which were
fully set forth in its note of March 30
were based on a misconccptlOn Of the
intentions Of the British government.
Desiring 10 avoid controversy and in
the expectation that the administration
of the Order in Council would conform
to the established rules OF international
law. this government has until now re-
served the question Of the actual valid
ity OF the Order in Council OF March
II. in so far as IL is considered by the
government Of Great Britain to cstab-
lish a blockade within the meaning Of
that term as understood in the law and
practices of nation ; but in the circum-
stancs now developed il feels that II
can no longer permit the validity OF the
alleged blockade TO remain unchal-
lengcd."
Pointing out that, in accordance with
the Declaration OF Paris in 1856. the
effectiveness of blockade is "mani-
testify question of fact" the United
States SAYS IL is common knowledge
that the German coasts are open TO
trade with the Scandinavian countries"
The recent placing OF cotton on the
British list of contraband is spoken OF
as making it appear that the British
government themselves have been
forced 20 the conclusion that the block
ade is ineffective TO prevent shipments
of cotton from reaching their enemies.
or else that they are doubtful as to the
legality Of the form 4 blockade which
they have sought 10 maintain"
Decisions are cited to show that it is
an essential principle, universally ac-
cepted. that q blockade must apply i'm
partially 10 the ships of all nations, and
il is added that If bell. erents them
selves trade with blockaded ports" the
principle i'm the past has been that they
cannot be regarded rs effectively
blockaded These decisions are re-
ferred to. "since il is a matter Of COM
mon knowledge that Great Britain ex-
ports and re-exports large quantities OF
merchandise TO Norway, Sweden, Den
mark and Holland, whose ports. so far
as American commerce Is concerned,
she regards as bockadcd.'
The principles Of the law OF nations
which forbid the blockade of neutral
ports in time OF war. embodied il that
part OF the Declaration of London
adopted by Great Britain as 10 block
AIDE. are discussed, and several deci-
sions OF the British prize courts prior
TO the present war, as well a. the Mata-
moras eases in the American Civil War,
are recalled TO support the contention
Of the United States.
Fails to Meet Three Tests.
Measured by "the three universally
conceded tests, the present British
measures cannot be regarded as con
shutting a blockade, in law, in prac-
tice or in effect"
Formal notice is given that the
blockade" which Great Britain
claims TO have instituted under the
Order in Council Of March II canno,
be recognized as a legal blockade by
the United States"
The British view Of the famous
Springbok case before the outbreak Of
the present war is cited to support
the American contentious.
The note deals exhaustively with HI
modes Of judicial redress for citizens
Of neutral countries and reaches GER
tain general conclusions. "The gov
eminent of the United States" il sayr,
"has viewed with surprise and concern
the attempt Of his majesty's o. ern-
ment 10 confer upon The British prize
courts jurisdiction by this Illegal *
ercise of force in order that these
courts may apply 10 vessels and car
goes of neutral y; lionalities. seizei
on the high seas. municipal laws and
orders which can only rightfully he
enforceable within the territorial wa
tiers of Great Britain or against ves-
sells Of British nationality hen ~
the high seas.
"The United States government feels
that il cannot reasonably be expected
TO advise its citizens TO seek redress
before tribunals which are, in its ,Din-
ion. unauthorized by the unrestricted
application Of international law 70
grant PREPARATION, nor 20 refrain from
presenting their claims directly the
British government through diplr-
matte channels"
Secretary Lansing, moreover, MES
in this connection that tht charge,
such as pilotage, wharfage, unloading
costs, etc. against a detained vessel
must be paid by the claimants, and
adds that the United States is "Ja.a
20 believe that such ungenerous treat
ment will continue to be accorded
American citizens" Any waivers # N.
demnity exacted from American citi-
zens "under such conditions OF du-
ress." il is declared. cannot preclude
them from subsequently obtaining re-
dress through Diplomatic channel.