New-York tribune., 1915-03-28
Ex-Premier Believes Allies
Policy the Only
Feasible One.
STOPPAGE OF FOOD
JUSTIFIED MORALLY
Discrimination Against Ameri-
can Trade Not Deliberate
Supports Asquith.
ny Gable 10 Tie Tribune. !

lhf 'shc 70 lic lHDuHc.I
London. March 27-The Tribune
having approached Arthur J. Balfour
for an interview on the important
questions of international law involved
in the Order in Council Of the Asquith
government, the ex-Premier cour-
teously consented to give the follow
ing statement on the subject, being
prevailed upon for orce to break
through his hitherto invariabl rule OF
declining all such requests.
Mr.. Balfour speaks not only with the
high authority of an ex-Premier and
To-. time lead of the Conservative
party. but as a statesman occupyii g the
independent position due to his having
resigned his leadership and abandoned
all future ambitions in the direction Of
office.
81 am in no sense personally respon-
sible for the policy which has been
adopted" he said. 81 was not con-
suited uDon it, and | view it the
greatest dislike any course which seems
in the smallest degree to violate the
rules of international warfare. But
those who will consent 70 cOnsido. the
present case on its merits will, ! think,
be persuaded hat the policy of the
Allies has conclusive moral justifica-
tion.
Cannot Cause Any Death.
whether British policy be or be not
in harmony with accepted rules OF in
ternationsl law is a point 10 which
shall refer in .. moment. But ttis at
least may be said in it's favor: II can
not cause the death OF single inno-
cent civilian. II cannot destroy neu-
trail lives and neutral property without
legal process. 1t cannot infiict any in
jury upon neutral commerce compar-
able in character or extent TO that
which would be produced by blockade
the legality Of which was beyond ques-
ton.
"But this contention, however true,
is in the eyes of some critics quite I'M
material. Law, they say, is law. Those
who break it are guilty OF q wrong
which does not become a right because
others have broken il in manner yet
more deserving OF condemnation. Ihe
German practice may be brutal to bel
ligerents ami reckless towards neu-
trails, the British practice may be care
ful Of human life and tender towards
the interests OF on-cOmbatants. No
matter. Neither can find Iustircation
in the accepted rules OF war and both,
therefore, fall under the same condem-
nation.
"But such a mode Of reasoning ap-
plies the most rigid technical stand
ards in a case where techpical stand
ards must be used with caution. IL
appeals to the letter Of international
law, but il ignores the spirit.
Fails TO Meet Definition.
"What. i'm .he eyes of the objector. is
the defect Of the British Order in Coun-
Gil? IL is that the blockade of which
notice is there given does not possess
all the characteristics of blockade
as defined in the authoritative text
books, an II that in particular 1t violates
the rule which forbids discrimination
in favor OF one neutral as against an
other
"Now, the object of this rule seems
clear. It is designed to prevent the
blockading power from using its priv
ileces in order to mete out different
TO different countries, as,
for instance. by letting the ships or
one nationality pass the blockadlhg !
Gordon while it captures the ships OF
another. Such a proceeding is not on .
the face Of it fair. 1t could have no |
object but to assist the trade Of one /
neutral as gainst the trade of an (
other and arbitrarily to redlstrlbute I
the burden which war unhappily in
ajcts on neutrals as well as on bellig- !
erents.
"Now. submit tha: if there be +
inflicted by the Brit /
ish blockade it is not discrimination ,
of tbis Kind. It does no doubt leave /
Continued on page ?. column