TaÌˆgliches Cincinnatier volksblatt. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1885-1919, 1915-08-23
GREAT BRITAIN AND THE
UNITED STATES.
Copyright. Evening Mail Syndicate.
Inc.
BY PROF JOHN w. BURGESS. Of
Columbia University.

To an American citizen whose
memory and experiences run back
TO the years between 1861 and 1855.
and who saw his country suffer un-
der the maleyolent neutrality OF
Great Britain, called by one OF our
most brilliant statesmen the "malig-
nant neutrality OF Great Britain
the attempt OF the British foreign
secretary to justify Great Britain's
present Interference with the CON-
merce between our country and the
neutral countries Of Europe upon the
basis OF American precsdents esiah-
lished during that period comes very
near TO adding insult TO injury
There is no essential feature In
which the two cases are parallel.
In the frst place. the only position
in international law which the in
surgents had was created for them
by the unnecessary and unfriendly
action Of Great Britain and France
in recognizing them as belligerents.
This action was unnecessary because.
since the insurgents had no navy or
merchant marina, and since the parts
OF the territory held by them were
quite effectively blockadsd. they
could not come into contact with
any power upon the high scas and no
power would be under any necessity
of determining It's attitude toward
them, and II was unfriendiy be
cause. IN the abeanne Of any such
necessity. II was an unwarranted
interference In tho internal Affairs OF
our own country.
The countries In Europe. both neu-
tral and belhgerent. with whom our
commerce is now being hampered and
destroyed by Grea, Britain have had
no such introduction under the pro-
lection OF international law by our
wrongful or meddling act. They eI-
listed as sovereign and independent
states in the family OF nations be-
fore We were born into It.
In the second place. 10 compare
the ports Of London and Nassau. as
the ports Of two nct:tral countries
OF as two neutral ports. with the
ports OF Now York and Rotterdam
or the ports OF Boston and Christian
sund is most unfair and deceptive.
In the seventh decade OF the last cen
tury. Nassau was q settlement OF
some seven thousand persons. most
ly blacks, upon the little candy
island OF New Providence. about one
hundred and twenty squares miles
In area and lying less than two
hundred miles from our Florida
coast II was then. As now. subject
10 the crown OF Great Britain. II
was. however. the place-by whose
appointment we know not. but have
good right TO suspect-where the
cargoes Of arms and munitions OF
war and other contraband articles
were transferred from the ships
which brought them from England
TO the daring little crafts. belonging
really 10 whom God only knows 70
this day. which took them over to
the mainland.
Nassau's Neutrality q Sham.
To call this place the port OF a
neutral country or neutral por;
like Rotterdam. Copenhagen and
Christiansund, the great, populout
commercial marts OF rich and popu.
lous countries. with their vast Dc.
mands for internal consumption. II
really exasperatinsiy trining. In
truth. TO term this place. Nassau. o
neutral port at all at that time Is tc
confound Action and fact. form and
substance. 80 far as our relations
TO Great Britain were concerned this
place was then port OF the insur-
gents against our government. made
In law our belligerent enemies By
the act OF Great Britain and France
in formality recognising them a.
such. and protected against US By
the British nag.
However. the court did not decide
the case. chiefly relied on by In,
British foreign secretary as the
American precedent for blockadins
neutral ports. the Springbok case
on the theory that Nassau was an
enemy's port, but ON tho theory that
II was neutral port,
| The main point isi Did the court
decided the oase on the principle
that We were biookading tho neutral
port OF hassaus Unien II did 80 II
Is no precedent for ths British for
siga saGsstAry's oonfantioa. J hAEs