New-York tribune., 1915-03-16
Great Britain's Attack on Neutral
RifhtS.


The British government issued yester-
day its expected Order in Council interdlct-
ing commerce between neutral countries
and Germany. The details Of the order
are of little consequence. Since Great
Britain has undertaken to brush aside
rights which neutrals enjoy under the eX-
isting code of international law it cannot
matter very much whether the methods
employed in making good that usurpaton
are in themselves high handed or are cal
culated to give as little technical lncOn-
venience as possible to neutral sufferers.
The British government promises that
the measures which it takes will involve
no "risk to neutral ships or to neutral or
non-combatant life" and will accord with
n strict observance Of the dictates of hu-
manity." But that is merely sugar-coating
q bitter dose. No neutral nation can be any
the less averse to surrendcrlng ITS cStab-
lished rights on the high seas because the
belligerent who is trying to take them
away agrees to conduct hold-up operations
in more or less civil and consideratc
manner.
Great Britain's new programme IS based
on a theory which cannot be JUSTIFIED IN
law or in reason. The law Of nations is
an outgrowth of common conceptions of
fairness in international dealings. 1t es-
tablishes restraints which are of universal
1 1T r. q. - ,,;oco of orrOraucp for anv
one nation to hold that international un-
derstandingS must yield in an emergency
to its temporary self-intercst. That IL
what Great Britain is doing in calling on
neutral nations to suspend commerce with
Germany, although Gcrmanys ports are
not blockaded and Great Britain declines
to accept the military risks Of blockading
them. There is no reason why the United
States or any other neutral nation should
abandon the right to trade with Germany
simply because voluntary ccs alton Of
such trade would allow Great Britain and
her allies to reap all the benefits of legal
blockade without incurring any of the n
.conveniences Of maintaining one.
We are asked to participate, at least
passively, in 4 punitive operation launched
by one belligerent against another. We
cannot any more submit to Great Britain's
demand that we surrender our right to
trade with unblockaded German ports or
with Germany through neutral ports (sub-
iect. of course, to contrabani restrictions)
than we could have allowed ourselves to
be intimidated by Germany's "war zone"
threat into abandoning our trade with the
unblockaded ports of Great Britain and
Ireland.
The excuse given for the Order in Coun-
ell is that it is a reprisaL That excuse
may hold against Germany, but it canno,
hold against neutrals. Just because Ger
many has sunk allied merchantmen and
has intimated that her submarines might
accidentally sink neutral merchantmen
Great Britain is not justified in going still
further and saying that neutral merchant
men may not hereafter carry any goods
destined TO Germany or outward bound
from Germany.
II one combatant in a quarrel strikes
out wildly at an innocent bystander, that
does not warrant the other combatant i'm
turning to and knocking the innocent vic
tim out. What the belligerentS do to one
ar other does not directly concern US. But
w6Sa either attacks US as an incident Of