The Washington herald., 1915-09-19

true. nevertheless, the series of re-
| taliations between Germany and Great
Britain began. The order-in-council
| was issued and the blockade estab-
Nshed. This blockade, so far as the
| ports Of neutrals are concerned, is
| regarded by American officials as a
paper blockade" but the United
states has not tested 1t by conyoyine
merchant ships with a war vessel.
1t was pointed out yesterday that
the case Of the packers has accentuat-
ed the position of Great Britain, by
which she claims that the packers
products. when they left the United
States. were making substantially a
continuous voyage.
An authority on which the State De-
partment relies to combat this position
Of Great Britain is the international law
digest of John Bassett Moore. After dis
cussing the case of the Springbok and
that of the Essex, the opinion quoted by
MIR. Moore says:
ITO permit one belligerent to shut out
neutralS from commerce which the other
belligerent may open to them, such
commerce not being in contraband of
war or in evasion of a blockade. would
impose upon neutrality burdens so in
tolerable as to make war, on it's part.
preferable to peace. The doctrine of
preted, is open to all of the objections
of paper blockade; it enables a bel
ligerent cruiser to seize all neutrals going
to belligerent port il they hold produce
OF the colonies Of that beliigerent, though
there be no pretense Of a blockade of
either colony or the mother state. Great
Britain, also. 1t was urged, had no right
to complain of this relaxation by a hos
tile sovereign of his colonial regulations.
since she had repeatedly varied in war
her colonial policy of trade. relaxing it
SO as to enable her colonies to have the
advantage of neutral commerce.
Not diplomatic Questions,
1t was stated by officials that by the
establishment of a paper blockade of
the ports Of neutrals, Great Britain has
practically put those ports in the same
class as the ports of a belligerent. and
she therefore assumes the right to stop
merchant ships with her cruisers
1t was added that Great Britain has
indicated to this government that she
still abides by her laws of 1876 and 1906
and that her acts need not be regarded
by this government as diplomatic ques-
tons" All that would be left for the
United States to do under this arrange
ment would be to dispute vigorously with
Great Britain that there was no justihca-
ton for the establishment Of a blockade
of neutral ports. especially under the as
surances given to this government by
Germany that she would see that food
stuffs sent through neutral ports were
not used by the German army and navy.
State Department officials predict an alb
solute disagreement between England
and the United States on this point.
1t was learned yesterday that the
United States has fully answered In theS
pending note the supplementary conten-
ton of the British foreign office that as
the United States seized British ships
during the civil war, on the ground that
their cargoes might get t. the Confed- |
crate States. Great Britain has ample |
justification for the extension of that
policy.
Civil War Cases.
The State Department holds that cases |
of seizure during the civil war were |
based on exact and undeniable informa- |
tion, not only as to the military char
acter of a part of the cargoes. but also
as to their destination. 1t was said by
a State Department official yesterday |
that whRn military buttons and other /
paraphefnalia used only in war were |
found on the vessels seized by the United |
States, their ultimate destination was /
absolutely proven. This showed, II Is |
held. that the United States never adopt
ed the justification OF suspicion alone as
sufficient to prove ultimate destination of
q cargo.
In the absence of Secretary Of State |
there was no one here who /
would say as to what time the note, !
which is in shape for transmission, will !
be sent to Great Britain.