The Washington times., 1915-08-03
SENATOR SMITH ONCE MORE

OCHoOoI A1OhC ASSNl iio w WIN
attack on the British views of con-
traband and blockade rights, with
new letter to The Times, which will
be found on this page. The Senator
opens with an expression of salts
faction at the full statement of the
positions of himself and The Times,
and observes that he will "not ask
to discuss that subject further" 1t
u hoped that this is a concession
that The Times has been correct on
these points; at any rate The Times
has a cheerful feeling that the au-
thorities and the practice entirely
sustain it.
The Senator wants to forget block
ade and contraband, and debate the
cases of Matamoras and Nassau, in
the civil war. He opens with the
case of Matamoras, and indulges a
peculiar unfairness, in that he quotes
part of Supreme Court decision
that seems to sustain his contention,
when the full decision, and the sub
sequent determination of the inter-
national Mixed Claims Commission,
completely sustained the position
The Times has taken.
Matamoras was a Mexican town
on the Rio Grande near it's mouth,
opposite Brownsville, Tex. The
Peterhof was an English vessel,
which sailed from London to Mata-
moras. She was seized by the
United States cruiser Vanderbilt, and
the prize court at New York con-
demned her. The British govern
ment did not even protest the seiz-
ure, but when the vessels owners
presented their case to the London
government they were given an an
swer that in effect indicated it's will
ingness to accept the American view
Of the doctrine of continuous voy-
age, already developed by the Fed
eral courts. The significs nee of
this doctrine, as stated by an au-
thority on maritime law, is that
mot only would the enemy's coast
be subjected to this supervision,
Ii. e., to blockade ] since blockading
squadrons could be placed around
neutral ports to arrest all vessels is
suing therefrom which carry goods
which might find their way into an
enemy's territory"
Precisely. That is just the law
that the United States made in the
Peterhof case. Senator Smith
quotes, from a decision of the Su-
rene Court in this case, this Ian
age:
Neutral trade to and from a
';adli- country by inland navi-
.-Ion or transportation is lawful"
and, therefore, that "tradc between
London and Matamoras, even with
intent to supply from Matamoras
goods to Texas, violated no block
ade and cannot be declared unlawful
- Such trade with unrestricted in
land commerce between such a port
and the enemy's territory impairs
undoubtedly, and very seriously I'M
pairs, a blockade of the enemy's
coast. But in cases such as that
now in judgment we administer the
public law of nations, and are not at
liberty to inquire what is for the
particular advantage or disadvan-
tage Of our nation or another coun-
try"
Senator Smith is so unfair as to
quote this excerpt as if it were the
conclusion; as if the Supreme Court
decided that the seizure of the Peter
hof was disavowed. But that was
not the case. The court went on to
say that articles contraband of war
on their voyage to neutral port
with a probable ulterior destination
to the enemy, were held liable to
condemnation, although the pre-
sumed transportation from the neu-
tral port to the enemy was to be
effected, and could only be effected
by overland conveyance across neu.
trial territory. ut is true" went OF
tho court, "that even these goods
if really intended for sale in the
market of Matamoras, would be free
from liability, for contraband may
be transported by neutrals to neu.
tral port if intended to make part
Of its general stock in trade. BUT
THERE is NOTHING IN THE
CASE WHICH TENDS TO CON
VINCE US THAT SUCH WAS
THEIR REAL DESTINATION
WHILE ALL THE CIRCUM
STANCES INDICATE THAT
THESE ARTICLES AT LEAST
WERE DESTINED FOR THF
FORCES THEN OCCUPYING
BROWNSVILLE AND OTHEf
NACES IN THE VICINITY"
Reading the excerpt which Sena
tor Smith quotes, it would be as
sumed that the goods got to th'