The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-01-12
WHAT THE NOTE DID NOT say.

A reading Of the British reply TO the American
note Of protest against the practice OF stopping
American ships reveals the fact that Britain
has said a great deal about the spirit Of re
American protest which she reciprocates pre-
sented her side Of the argument. avoided discus
sion Of the strongest points Of the protest and
made no promise Of lettering conditions other
than NAV re contained In the further reply that
is promised and in the statement that Britain
will be willing TO compensate America for GER
tain damages
America protested chiefly against detentions
Of American ships which do not carry contra
band of war ana which have legitimate rights
OF unrestricted passage. Britain replies by
enumerating the number OF ships that have
sailed from America TO other ports. 755; the
number whose cargoos have been referred to
prize cottts. ~ and the number now held in
British ports. -. The note says nothing about
tie seven hundred odd ships that had legitimate
rights of passage unrestricted and which. there
fore should have been detained
From the 4th ~ August last to the 50 Of Ian
uafy the number of steamships proceeding from
tho snited states for Holland, Denma rlt Nor
way sweden and Italy, has beer 773. OF these
there arc forty-fve which have had constan-
ments of carKoes placed in the prize court while
Of the ships themselves only eight have been
placed in tho prize court and one OF these has
since been released
The administration admitted that there we're
eases in which shippers had concealed the real
nature and destination OF cargoes and to remedy
this defect after dispatch of the note Of protest
advocated drew up and published plans for gov
eminent inspection and guarantee of cargoes.
One other section OF the British note viii
not comment on very fully until the supplement
airy statement is forthcoming. It reads
With regard to the seizure of foodStuTs 70
which your excellency refers his ma jestys gov
! eminent is prepared to admit that foodstu IS
should not DE detained and put into prize
court without presum ption that they are In
/ tended for the armed forces Of the enemy the
cnemy's government. We believe that this rule
has been adhered to in practice hitherto, but. II
the United States government have instances 70
the contrary. are prepared to examine them
and 1t is our present intention to adhere to the
rule though we cannot give an unlimited and
unconditional undertaking in view of The de
parture by those against whom we are fghting
from hitherto accepted rules OF civilization and
! humanity AMI the uncertainty as to the extent
to which such rulcs may he violated by them IL
the futur-
Are 10 understand from this that Britain
will govern her code of honor. her treatment Of
neutral powers, by the way in which her enc
mics conduct themselves. England states Ger
many has departed from hitherto accepted rules
Of civilization and humanity, and that, there
fore. she England will hesitate to observe a rule
with regard to neutral shipping which she has
hitherto observed. II may be that the statement
was not intended 70 convey such an impression
hut 1t can certainly be so construed.
The reply clears UP some misconceptions,
but the supplement has room for a similar worl
with regard TO the original