Norwich bulletin., 1915-08-04
BRITAIN CONTENDS AMERICAN PROTEST
 IS UNsUsTAINA6LE
Continued from Page onel

With these conditions it may be safely | amrmed that the steps we are taking 1 70 intercept commodities on their way | 10 and from Germany fully comply. We | are interfering with no goods with | which We should not be entitled to in- terfere by blockade if the geographical | position and the conditions of Germany | at present were such that her conn., | merce passed through her own ports. We are taking the utmost possible care not to interfere with commerce genu- | finely destined for or proceeding from neutral countries Furthermore. we have tempered the severity with which | our measures might press upon neu- trals by not applying the rule which was inyariable in the old form of their way to or from the blockaded area are liable to condemnation"
 Reviews Forms of Blockade.
 The note then reviews at some length the various forms in which blockades have been maintained to show there has been no uniformity of practice in very essential points and declares:
 ''The one principle which is funda- mental and has obtained universal recognition is that by means of a blockade a belligerent Is entitled to cut off by effective means the sea- borne commerce of his enemy"
 Interrogation of Commerce.
 Consequently. Sir Edward argues, it Is impossible to maintain that the right of a belligerent to intercept the commerce of his enemy can be limited in the way suggested in the Ameri- can notes on the subject.
 There are many cases" he says.
 1n which proofs that the goods were enemy property would afford strong evidence that they were of enemy ori- gin 6cetfna ffnr1 o7d f- or1x in such cases that we are detaining them Where proof of enemy owner ship would afford no evidence of such origin or destination we are not in the practice of detaining the goods"
 Sir Edwards note closes with the
 observation that figures of recent months show that the increased oppor- tunities afforded by the war for Amer ican commerce have more than com pensated for the loss of the German and Austrian markets. We shall continue to apply these measures with every desire to occasion the least possible amount of inconvenience to persons engaged in legitimate com merce"
 Supplemental Note.
 In the supplemental note, which is a reply to the American caveat giving notice that the United States would not recognize the orders-in council in | lieu of international law. Sir Edward
 Grey writes he does mot understand | to what divergence of views as to the
 principles of law applicable in cases ! before the prize court, the government | of the United States refers, for I am | not aware of any differences existing
 between the two countries as to the
 principles of law applicable in cases
 before such courts
 Compares Rules of Courts. Sir Edward compares the rules gov I AL | applied by American courts. referring | especially to the American case of the | Amy Warwick before the United States | supreme court. where it was held that | prize courts are subject to the in | structions of their own sovereign. In | the absence of such instructions, their | jurisdiction and rules of decision are to | be ascertained by reference to the | known powers of such tribunals and i the principles by which they are gov
 erned under the public law and the practice of nations It would appear, | therefore, that the principles applied | by the prize courts of the two coun-
 tries are identical.''
 | Laws Governing Prize Courts. The supplemental note then proceeds | with a long legal argument to demon
 strate the practicability of a prize | court being governed by international | law and at the same time by municipal | law III tie 1OILu Ol | It finally comes to the case of the
 steamer Zamora in the present war, in | which the British court declared: | The nations of the world need not | be apprehensive that orders-in- council | will emanate from the government of
 this country in such violation of the | acknowledged laws of nations that 1t | is conceivable that our prize tribunals, | holding the law of nations in rever-
 ence. would feel called upon to disre-
 gard and refuse obedience to the pro- ] visions of such orders"
 Legality of orders-in-couneiI. , Sir Edward then points out that the | legality of the orders-in-council or of | the measures taken undR them have | prize court but he reminds the
 United States that it is open to any United States citizen whose claim Is | before the prlze court to contend that any order-in-councilw which may affect | his claim is inconsistent with the | principles of international law and is
 therefore not binding upon the court. | If the prize court declines to accept | his contentious, and if after such a
 decision has been upheld upon appeal
 by the judicial committee of his ma | jesty's privy council, the government | of the United States consider that | there is serious ground for holding that | the decision is incorrect and infringes | the rights or their citizens, It is open | to them to claim that it should be
 subjected to review by an international | tribunal"
 Matamoros Cases of Civil War. | The celebrated Matamoros cases of | the Civil war then are cited to show | that the supreme court of the United | States held it had the right to reverse
 the decisions of prize courts and that | there was no doubt of the Jurisdiction | of an international tribunal to review | the decisions of the prize courts of the | United States where the paries all | leging themselves aggrieved had prose- cuted their appeals to the court of last | resort" i If the United States should be dis | satisfied with decisions of British prize | courts as sustained by the privy coun- | cil. the British governmeneis prepared
 to concert with the United States 'in
 order to decide upon the best way of | applying the principle to the situation | which would then have arisen"
 lnvaIidity of Claim Tn Neches Case.
 To the American note in the case of Il fba steamer Naphaa which aiITf1rr1a riiv