The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-11-10
SUMMARY OF NOTE
UNITED STATES REJECTS POLL
CIES OF EXPEDIENCY

UIl1LU - 2LS 2A1oAS4S L VAA
CIES OF EXPEDIENCY
BLOCKADE UNRECOGNIzEI
Note to Great Britain Covers Allie6
Interference With American Trade
| and Declares Blockade "Ineffec
tive, Illegal and Indefensible"-
Our Relations Must Rest Upon Es'
tabhshed Rules.
The note sent to Great Britain
! October 21, and Acknowledges the
notes of the British government dat,
ed. January Z, February 10, June o.
July %, July 81 (two), August Is
and note verbale of the British en-
bassy of August s, all of which re-
late to restrictions upon American
commerce.
The United States says at the out
set that it has delayed answering
these notes in the hope that the an
nounced purpose of Great Britain
ito exercise their belligerent right
with every possible consideration for
the interests of neutrals," and OF
causing 1.-The least possible amount OF
inconvenience to persons engaged in
legitimate trade" would in practice
not unjustifably infringe upon the
neutral rights Of American citizens.
"It u.s.. therefore, a matter of re-
gret," says the note, "that this hope
has not been realized, but that, on
the contrary, interferences with
American ships and cargoes destined
in good faith to neutral ports and
lawfully entitled to proceed have be-
come increasingly yexatious, causing
American ship owners and American
merchants to complain to the govern
ment of the failure to take stevs to
prevent and exercise of belligerent
power in contravention of their just
rights.
LAS the measures complained of
proceed directly from orders issued
by the British government, are exc
cuted by British authorities and
arouse a reasonable apprehension
that, if not resisted, they may be car
ried to an extent even more injurious
to American interests this govern
ment directs the attention of his Ma
jesty's government to the following
considerations:
Here follow in numbered para
graphs the points made by the United
States. Summarized, they are:
/. The statistics presented by
Great Britain to prove an increase
rather than decrease in American
trade fail to take into account the
increased price of commodities re-
sulting from state Of war or to
make any allowance for the dimlnu-
ton in the volume of trade which the
neutral countries in Europe previous
ly had with the nations at war;
2. Detentions by Great Britain
have not been uniformly based OF
proofs obtained at the time of seiz-
ure, but many vessels have been de-
tanned, while search was made for
evidence" The question has been
one of "evidence to support the be-
lief of-in many cases a bare suspi-
cion of-enemy destination, or occa-
sionally of enemy origin Of the goods
involved"
8. Attention is directed with re-
gard to search Of neutral vessels at
sea to the instructions issued to the
naval commanders of the ! United
States, Great Britain, Russia, Japan,
Spain, Germany and France from
1888 to the beginning of the present
war to show that search in port was
not contemplated by the government
of any of these countries.
4. An examination of the opinion
of the most eminent text writer's on
the laws of nations shows "that they
give practically no consideration to
the question Of search in port outside
of examination in the course of regu-
lar prize court proceedings
5. Answering the assertion OF
Great Britain that the position OF the
United States in relation Of search at
sea is inconsistent with its practice
during the civil war, the note says
this is based upon ''misconception." "
A careful search of the records
shows conclusively that there were
no instances when vessels were
brought into port for search prior to
instituting prize court proceedings,
and that captures were not made up
on other grounds than evidence
found on the ship under Investigation
and not upon circumstances ascer-
tained from external sources" 1t is
here that Secretary Lansing appends
copy of the instructions issued to
American naval officers on August
IS, 1862.
6. In answer to the British con-
tention that conditions relating to the
size and seaworthiress of modern car
riers justify bringing vessels into
port, there is cited the report of a
board OF United States naval experts,
Just made, in which it is declared
that it is not necessary to remove
"every package of a ships cargo to
establish the character and nature OF
her trade, that the facilities for
boarding and inspection of modern
ships are in fact greater than in for
mer times, and that to permit ships
to be taken into port would be a
direct aid to the belligerents concern
ed in that it would release q belllg-
erent vessel overhauling the neutral
from its duty of search and set 1t
free for further belligerent opera
tons
T. S and 9. These points deal
with new procedures in the prize
courts, the effect OF which the Unit
ed States complains is Ito subject
traders to risk of loss, delay and ex-
pense so great and so burdensome as
to practically destroy much of the
export trade of the United States to
neutral countries of Europe"
10 and II. These discuss the
question of the burden Of proof as to
the non-contraband Of goods conslsn-
ed Ito ORDER" the United States ar
suing that none of the cases cited by
Great Britain proves that the burden
of proof can rightly be made to rest
11os