Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-11-08

1885 tbe effectiveness Of blockade is
.manifestly a question of fact" the
United States says it is common
knowledge that the German coasts
are omen to trade with the Scandina-
Wan 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 ben forced to the conclusion that
the blockade is ineffective to prevent
shipments Of cotton from reaching
their enemies, or else that they are
doubtful as to the legality Of the form
Of blockade which they have sought
to maintain"
(2o). Decisions are cited to show
that it is an essential principle, uni
versally accepted. that a blockade
must apply impartially to the ships OF
all nations. and it is added that IL
belligerents themselves trade with
blockaded ports" the principle in the
past has been that they cannot be re-
garded as effectively blockaded. These
decisions are referred to ''since it is
matter Of common knowledge that
Great Britain exports and re-exports
large quantities Of merchandise to Nor
way, Sweden, Denmark and Holland,
whose ports, so far as American COM
merce is concerned, she regards as
blockaded."
CID. The principles of the laws of
nations which forbids the blockade of
neutral ports in time Of war, embod-
led in that part Of the Declaration of
London adopted by Great Britain as to
blockade. are discussed and. several
decisions of the British prize courts
prior to the present war as we'll as
the Matamoras cases in the American
civil war are recalled to support the
contention of the United States.
l22. Measured by "the three uni
versally conceded tests the present
British measures cannot be regarded
as constituting a blockade, in law, in
practice. or in effect"
(23). Formal notice is given that
the blockade which Great Britain
claims to have instituted under the
Order in Council Of March II. cannot
be recognized as a legal blockade by
the United States"
CA. The British view of the fam
Gus Springbok case before the out
break of the present war is cited to
support the American contentious.
(25 to 80 inclusive). These deal eX-
haustively with the modes of judicial
redress for citizens of neutral coun-
tries, and reaches certain general con-
illusions. THE Government of the
United States" the note says. has
viewed with surprise and concern the
attempt Of His Majesty's Government
to confer upon the British prize courts
jurisdiction by this illegal exercise of
force in order that these courts may
apply the vessels and cargoeS of neu-
trail nat;onalities, seized on the high
seas. municipal laws and orders which
can only rightfully be enforcible with
in the territorial waters Of Great Bril-
tain or against vessels of British ma
tionality when on the high seas. Xxx
The United States government feels
that it cannot reasonably be expected
to advise its citizens to seek redress
before tribunals which are in its opin-
ion. unauthorized by the unrestricted
application of international law to
grant PREPARATION. nor to refrain from
presenting their claims directly to the
British government through diplomatic
channels
Secretary Lansing moreover denies in
that the charges. such as pilotage,
wharfage. unloading costs, etc. against
a detained vessel must be paid by the
claimants. and adds that the United
States is 'loath TO believe that such
ungenerous treatment will continue TO
be accorded American citizens Any
waivers of indemnity exacted from
American citizens under such condi-
tions Of duress." il is declared cannot
preclude them from subsequently, OBJ
tanning redress through diplomatic
channels.