The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1915-11-09

; z = A +A-- .tilI
| len of proof canTrightiy s'be made Il
rest upon the, SlainIaTts,p pi"', y -" -"
Ia tlg.l ,rhe greatly piHefefsel iRt:
i,pprts., oi ;sio,,cr;,l teSNSitiys adj aaiiSs
/, Il rCat,, &sSian,s efSeisfieS. "c6irtot bt
a,.Iept,si asVilaySnS aUN3f Just -oi
,tsSa} rutt,. of sNidenue" that coH IN odf
,JSSs axe destined for 're-eXport tatf66
~ the beiligerents. Sdcff" a rule, n
Is arSNed. "OfGers toos great opp6n-
tt,nIty ior abuse by the 3beiligcro ftisii
,aBd is opposed. ito those fundamental
prjucipios of Justice which are the
touudation of the Jurisprudence OF
;hS United States and Great Britain.
C1SO Attention is directed to tho,
fact that Great Britain admits that
her exports to neutral countries have
also materially increased since the
present war began. Thus Great Brit
ain" says the note, "concededlN
shares in creating condition which
is relied upon as sufficient ground
o justify the interception of Ameri-
can goods destined to neutral Euro
pean ports. If British exports to
those ports should be still further in
creased, il is obvious that, under the
rule of evidence contended for by the
British government, the presumption
of enemy destination could be applied
to a greater number of American car
goes, and American trade would
suffer to the extent that British trade
benefited by the increase. Great
Britain cannot expect the United
States to submit to such manifest
injustice or to permit the rights of
it's citizens to be so seriously i'm
paired"
(14.) Whatever may be the con-
jectural conclusion drawn from trade
the United tteS main
tains the right to sell goods into the
general stock of a neutral country
and denounces as illegal and unjusti-
fable any attempt of belligerent to
interfere with that right on the
ground that it suspects that the prev
ious supply of such goods in the neu-
tEal country which the imports renew
or replace has been sold to an enemy.
That is matter with which the neu-
trail vender has no concern and which
can in no way affect his rights of
trade. Moreover, even If goods listed
as conditional contraband are destin-
ed to an enemy country through n /
neutral country, that fact is not in
itself sufficient to Justify their seiz-
ure."
15.) In view of these considera- /
tions the United States announces |
that il has no other course but ito |
contest seizures of vessels at sea upon
suspicion and the prac. !
tice OF bringing them into port for the /
purpose, by search or otherwise, OF /
obtaining evidence" and adds that /
relying upon the regard OF thaI
British government for the principles .
Of justice so frequently and uniformly /.
prior to the present war.
this government anticipates that the F.
British government will instruct their
officers to refrain from these veX-
atious and illegal practices"
(l6.) Directing particular atten- |.
ton to the so-called blockade meas /
ures" imposed by the Order in Coun- |
Gil OF March IL. the British note Of |
july 23 last is cited to confirm the |
intention Ito establish blockade"
tier over six months application OF
the blockade order, the note saws, |
the experience of American citizens
has convinced the government of the .
United States that Great Britain has
been unsuccessful in her efforts to
distinguish between enemy and neu-
trail trade"
t7) The practice of requiring
ronslgnor TO prove that his shipments
are not bound to an enemy of Great
Britain even when articles are on the
embargo list of the neutral country TO
winch they are destined, is charac- /
teri2ed as "harassing to neutral trad
ers."
(lS.D While the United States
government was at first inclined TO
view with leniency the British meas
ureS which were termed i'm the cor
respondence but not in the Order i'm
council OF March IL "a blockade he +.
cause OF the assurance of the British
government that Inconvenience to T,
neutral trade would be minimized by
me discretion left to the courts in the /
ippllcatlon OF the Order in Council |
ana Dy the instructions which il was
said would be issued to the admins
,rative and other authorities having
% DO with the execution OF the So
'alied blockade measures, this gov
ernment is now forced to the realiza-
Ion that its expectations, which
we're fully set forth in its note of
narch 81 were based on a miscon-
,eption OF the intentions of the
3ritish government. Desiring to
iVold controversy and in the expect
alton that the administration of the
order in Council would conform 10
he established rules of international
aW,' this government has until now
eserved the question OF the actual
'alidity of the Order in Council of
March i l, in so far as il is considered
~ the government OF Great Britain
o establish a blockade within the
meaning OF that term as understood
n the law and nra cticas of n,t;on..