Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-08-04
BRITISHNOTE ONBLOCKADEPOHCY
SAYSu. 5. PRECEDENT FOLLOWED

! the war.
Grey Justifies Measures Taken.
In the note addressed by Sir Ed
ward Grey, the British secretary Of
state for foreign affairs, to Ambassa
dor Page, the British secretary states
that he hopes that the ambassador
will be able to convince Washington
ing the American right to adapt
tation OF the old and recognized prin.
ciples of blockade, brought up to date
TO TT the new conditions that have
arisen
Sir Edward refers In his note to the
Belgian atrocities. TO the proof that
the Germans IN their attempt to de-
fend German West Africa poisoned all
the wells and waterholes In their re-
treat, and TO the inhumanity shown in
the summarizing OF the Lusitania and
the killing Of 100 non-combatants.
men. women and children, drawing at
tention to these to show how neces-
sary It is that the British use all JUS
tiiable methods in carrying on their
defense.
precedent Quoted.
Great Britain, says the secretary's
note to the ambassador, can not ac-
cept the American contention that the
commerce of q belligerent should be
allowed to pass unchallenged and un-
restricted through adjacent ports, and
the secretary refers to the blockade
Of the South during the Civil War.
when 1000 miles Of coast line were de-
clared blockade at q time when the
North could only place q comparative
~ few ships along the blockaded
coast and when, II the blockade to be
effective had required q continuous
and constant patrol Of all the blockad-
ed coast. the legality Of the blockad-
ing order could have been called into
question. something the British gov
eminent did not do.
Sir Edward reminds the ambassador
Of the blockade Of neighboring neutral
territory which AFFORDED convenient
centers for shipment to the Confeder-
acy. and recalls the incident Of the
seizure OF the British ship Springb6k
by an American cruiser, at which time
the American state department i1sti-
fed the readjustmCht Of the doctrine
of continuous voyage BY the plea that
the changed circumstances OF warfare
demanded an adaptation Of the old
principle to the new circumstances.
Cases Are ParalIei
The British SECRETARY states that he
holds that Great Britain today faces
the same DIFFICULTIES that the United
Stzlgs raced 50 years ago as result
Of the numerous routes through neu-
trail countries by which supplies may
reach Germany. Sir Edward holds
that the principles under which the
British are enforcing their blockade
Of neutral ports are Of general accept
ance TO al other nettrals. their justih-
cation being recognized.
In the case of the Springbok. says
the note, It VIII be remembered that
she was seized by the Americans
while en- route to The British West IN
dies, the justification for her seizure
being the American belief that her
cargo was intended ultimately to
reach the South. The matter was car
ried to the Supreme Court OF the Unit
ed States by the owners OF the vessel
and the cargo and the Supreme Court
upheld the legality Of the seizure. At
that time, the ambassador is remind.
ed, the British government entered
no protest at washington against the
seizure Of the British vessel. recogniz-
ing the American right right to adapt
old principles to new circumstances,
the same right that the British now
CLAIM
Rleht Of ssif-Preservstlon.
The note states that the Importance
Is recognized OF not adapting old rules
unless tho adaptation is consistent
with the principle of international law,
and In this case the United States
must admit the right of belligerent
to protect itself by preventing supplies
the enemy, provided the es-
sential feature Of the blockade is not
to injure the person or the property
Of neutraIs.
Great Britain is complying with
these conditions. said the secretary.
Answering the caveat notice filed
that the United States would not
agree to recognize the findings of the
British prize courts in the matter of
the cargoes seized and detained by
the British, Sir Edward Grey holds
that the orders In council under which
the neutral vessels were seized are
within international law. He states
that Great Britain would work with
The Americans IN those cases In which
Americans desired to appeal from the
findings of the prize courts.