The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-03-24
they would otherwise be liable to
condemnation

peTLdluluS Ouly W q SIdlS VI UAoSh
ade. The last sentence proposes
treatment o. ships and cargo as If NJ
blockade existed. The two togethe,
present a proposed course Of actor
practically unknown to internationa
law. AS consequence neutrals have
no standard by which to measure
their rights. The paradoxical situa
ton thus created should be changed
and the declaring powers ought tt
assert whether they rely upon the
rules governing a blockade or the
rules applicable when no blockade
| exists.
1.-The declaration presents othe1
perplexities. The last sentence quot
ed indicates that the rules of contra
band are to be applied to cargoes de-
tanned. The rule covering non-con'
traband articles carried in neutra
bottoms Is that the cargo shall be re.
leased and the ships allowed to pro-
ceed.
What then is to be done with that
cargo of non-contraband goods de.
tanned under the declaration? The
same question may be asked az tc
( conditional contraband cargoes.
"The foregoing comments apply tc
cargoes destined for Germany. .. .
Under the rules governing enemy ex.
! ports only goods owned by enemy
subjects in enemy bottoms are sub
| ject to seizure and condemnation. Yet
by the declaration it is purposed to
seize and take into port all goods OF
enemy ownership and origin. .
The origin Of goods destined to neu-
tral territory on neutral ships is not
and never has been ground for for
feiture except in case blockade is de-
clared and maintained. The
declaration does not indicate what
disposition would be made Of car
goes if owned by neutral or if own
ed by an enemy subject. Would a
different rule be applied according to
ownership? If so upon what princ1-
pies Of international law would II
rest? And upon what rules II no
blockade is maintained could the car
go OF a neutral ship sailing out Of a
German port be condemned? If it is
not condemned, what other legal
course is there out to release it?
while this government is fully
alive to the possibility that the meth
DDS OF modern naval warfare, par
ticularly in the use of the submarine
for both defensive and offensive op-
erations, may make the former means
of maintaining blockade a physical
impossibi]ity, it feels that it can be
urged with great force that there
should be also some limit to the
radius of activity and especially so
if this action by the belligerents can
be construed to be blockade. 1t
would certainly create serious state
Of affairs, If, for example, an Ameri-
can vessel laden with cargo of Ger
man origin should escape the British
patrol in European waters only to be
held up by a cruiser of New York
and taken into Halifax.
Similar cablegrams sent to Paris.
Bryan"
The Reply Of France.
The American ambassador at Paris
transmitted to the secretary Of state
from the French government the fol-
lowing message:
hSsi Su 1V4o
French government replies as fol-
lows:
"In a letter dated March your
excellency drew my attention to the
views of the United States regarding
the recent communications from the
French and British governments con-
corning a restriction to be laid upon
commerce with Germany. According
to your excellency's letter, the decla-
ration made by the allied govern
ments presents some uncertainty as
regards it's application.
"'At the same time your excel
lency notified me that the govern
ment of the United States was some
what apprehensive that the allied bel
ligerents might Git their action is to
be construed as constituting block
ade) capture in waters near America
any ship which might have escaped
the cruisers pratroling European
| waters. I have the honor to inform
you that the government of the re-
public has not failed to consider this
point and I beg to specify clearly the
conditions Of application as far as my
government is concerned, of the dec
laration of the allied governments
AS we'll set forth by the federal gov
ernment the old methods of blockade
can not be entirely adhered to in vie"
of the use Germany has made OF her
submarines. In answer to the
challenge contained IN the
declaration by which the German I'M
perial government stated that it con-
stdered the seas surrounding Great
| Britain and the Fernch coast on the
! channel as a military zone .
the allied governments have been OBJ
liged to examine what measures they
could adopt to interrupt all maritime
communication with the German en-
! pire, at the same time safe
guarding as much as possible the le'
gitimate interests of neutral powers
and respecting the laws Of humanity
"'The government Of the republic
therefore, reserves to itself the right
of bringing into a French or alice
port any ship carrying cargo pre-
sumed to be of German origin, des
tination or ownership, but it will moi
90 to the length of seizing any neu'
trail ship except in case Of ccutra
band. The discharged cargo shall MOI
! be confscated. In the event OF 6
neutral proving his lawful ownership
Of merchan disc destined to Germany
he shall be entirely free to dispose o
same, subject to certain conditions
In case the owner Of the goods Is
German they shall simply be seQues
trated during he war.
| Merchandise OF enemy origin
shall only be sequestrated when 1t l:
at the same time the property OF al
enemy: merchandise belonging Il
neutrals shall be held at the disposa
of it's owner to be returned to tht
port OF departure.
GAS your excellency will observe
these measures, while depriVlng the
enemy of important resources, re
spect the rights Of neutrals and vii
not in any way jeopardize private
property.
1.-THE government of the republic
S--- lo.t-;o,c ~ o11oUiO0 pl1traI