New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-08-03
New Note UpholdS Orders
in Council Under Inter
national Law.
II. s. PRECErENTS
CITE IN REPLY
Germany Presents Her Views on
the Frye Case-All Notes
Public Tomorrow.
From The Tribune Bureau

Washington, Aug. 2. With the re-
ceipt to-day of Great Britain's sup
Elemental note dealing with the caveat
filed by the United States in the prize
court cases, the British defence OF
the legality of its blockade policy is
now before Secretary Lansing in its
complete form. The note to-day makes
the third not yet made public, and ar
engagements are being made for stimuli
taneous publication in England and
America on Wednesday morning.
The first British note is long COM
munication defending the Allies efforts
to suppress trade between their enc
mics and neutral countries, even by the
stoppage of abnormal commerce
through the neutral countries of Eu-
rope, adjacent TO the Teutonic allies
Precedents in international law estab-
lished by the United States government
itself during the Civil War, and espe-
cially in the practical blockade OF the
Bahamas, to cut of supplies from the
Confederate states are revived to sup
port this assertion of right.
There are citations OF decisions by
the United States Supreme Court bear
ing on the same point, such as the
celebrated Springbok case. Other de
cisions, such as that in the Matamoras
case, which appeared to conflict with
this doctrine. are held to be inappllca-
BILE because of a radical difference of
governing conditions.
To Meet American Objections.
The note was long in preparation and
was intended to meet the objection OF
the United tSates that previous British
notes had dealt only with special cases
of seizures and detention of ships and
carpoes under conditions that seemed
to Justify the British action, failing 10
answer the American contentious that
the whole process of interference with
neutral commerce was in violation OF
international law. After it had been
sent to Washington new conditions
arose that led the British government
to amplify its argument.
One of these new conditions was
strong protest by the State Department
against the seizure of the American
shin Neches, bound from Rotterdam for
New York with a cargo of Belgian and
German goods. British activities
previously had been confined princi-
pally to holding up cargOes from Amer
lea. ostensibly bound for neutral coun-
tries, but alleged by the British TO be
actually destined for Germany or Aus
tria. The Neches case made ..ecessary
a defence of the Allies right TO cut oil
Germany's export trade TO neutral
countries and the financial benefit TO
be derived from that business.
The second note of the series deals
with this issue and it is understood that
it sets up the contention that an actual
blockade of the North Sea ports exists
and that. regardless Of the British Or
ders in Council, there is an inherent
right in the blockading powers under
international law to suppress traihc OF
this kind While the controversy is
proceeding, unofficial efforts are being
made to release for the American mar
ket goods now awaiting export at Rot
terdam, by proving Belgian origin and
American ownership.
Reply to American Caveat.
The last note Of the series is in re-
plv to the American caveat of July II,
saying that the United States would
be governed only by the principles of
international law in dealing with cases
Of detentions of American ships and
goods. and would not recognize the
Orders in Council.
The British Foreign Office holds that
the Orders in Council comply with the
spirit of international law, although
they make a new application Of these
principles TO suit the new conditions
DEVELOPED IN the war.
British prize court proceedings, in
which the magistrates have assumed
that the Orders in Council were in con-
formity with international law, pro-
voked the American communication. The
British contend that where interna-
tional issues were pending before the
United States courts, that fact has been
recognized by the London government
as reason for deferring diplomatic
protests.
1t is held that the United States gov
eminent cannot assume that its mer-
chants have suffered permanent injury,
since there is always in reserve the
right of diplomatic review of prize
court decisions, and even of arbitra-
ton, under the special arbitration
treaty between the United States and
Great Britain, recently perfected
An answer to the British notes soon
will be forthcoming, as officials here
have been prepared to some extent for
the representations made to-day, and
have gathered material in rebuttal.