The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-08-04
The english VIEW
SUMMARY OF NOTE RECEIVED
FROM LONDON
HAS NOT Been PUBLISHED

At the Request Of Great Britain OF
fetal Publication Of Reply is With
held-Wilson is Studying the Not
at Cornish-Present Summary i
Probably Authentic.
The text Of the note received from
the British government Monday ha
been forwarded to President Wilson
at Cornish for his information. l
is also being carefully studied an
analyzed by Secretary Lansing am
his advisers in the state department
A Washington dispatch to The New
York Times indicated the genera
character and tenor Of the not
which was received Additional in
formation obtained concerning th'
attitude Of the British governmen
as set forth in the British note. /
may be summarized as follows:
1. The British government con-
tends that it has not departed from
or altered the generally recognized
principles of international law re-
garding blockade and contraband,
and the treatment Of neutral COM
merce, but has merely given new
applications to existing principles
Of international law.
2. That the British government
can not accept any doctrine that
would treat every port Of the Brit
ish Isles as blockaded port under
the enforcement Of the German
submarine policy, while leaving
Germany free to make use OF GER
tain natural neutral ports, such as
Rotterdam, for commerce up the
Rhine into Germany.
s. That the British government
is observing principles Of interna-
tionaI law sustained by decisions
of the United States supreme court
in the civil war cases, in which the
British government contends, the
court decided that the real critic
rion of neutral trsdc is neutral
consumption, and that the, nero
fact that trade goes through a neu-
tral country does not constitute 1t
neutral trade.
4. The British government con-
tends that the former distinction
between land end sea carriage of
trade has disappeared, owing to
the construction and Development
of railroads and the creation OF the
German ccnal system.
5. The principle Of international
law, as viewed by the British gov
ernment in making its reply, Is
that if a nation possesses COM
mand of the seas that nation can
declare a lawful blockade and pre-
vent trade with the enemy, and
that the criterion of whether an
effective blockade exists is whether
q voyage to an enemy port is at
tended with exceptional risks.
S. That while the general prin-
ciples Of law remain the same,
their application depends on cir
cumstances, and while belllgerent
has no right to endanger neutral
lives or legitimate neutral trade
between neutrals, trade destined
for On enemy under tie gulse OF
being legitimate neutrel commerce,
can not expect to pass freely
through a neutral port into the
enemy's country for use by the
enemy.
Z. In response to the American
contention that neutral trade be-
tween neutrals has, IS a matter OF
fact, been intcrfered with the Brit
ish contention is that only neutral
trade with belligcrerts is being
interfered with and neutral trade
with neutral nations contiguous to
Germsny is greater than it was
prior to the war, and in excess OF
the precise amounts needed by the
requirements CT tho population Of
those contiguous neutrcl countries.
8. IN response to tho American
contention th:t American shippers
have the precedents on their side,
that the evidence is not sufficient
to prove that the neutral trade In
terfered with by Great Britain has
been in reality tradc with the
enemy, the British government
contends that the so-called neutral
agents situated in neutral coun-
tries were in reality agents for
Germany.
8. It is argued " the British
government that this is :. matter
of judicial proof or disproof, and
as a iuridicial question must even
tua!ly, under the arbitration treaty
between Great Britain and the
United States, go before an arol-
tral court for determination, but
that it would be impossible, at the
present moment, with the war in
Europe involving all six of the
leading nations Of Europe, to IND
a neutral arbitrator whose country
was not Immediately interested
outside of South America.
10. That it must be obvious that
the interests of Europe in the
question OF continuous voyages as
understood in international law
decisions of the two countries,
England and the United States, are
diametrically opposed to those OF
England and the United States.
1t would thus appear to be tn
position Of the British governmen
that differences found to exist be
tween the two governments as to tn
principles of law applicable, or re
enectino the aDplication of thOS