New-York tribune., 1915-03-18
ORDER
VAGUE, BRYAN'S
NOTE PROTESTED
Asked Both England and
France to Clear Up
Doubtful Points.
MEANT BLOCKADE
LONDON EXPLAINED
Each Power Declared 1t Would
Not Molest Ships Outside
European Waters.

Washington, March 1.-THE Ameri-
can government transmitted idehtie
messages of inquiry to the ambassa-
6ors at London and Paris, inqurlng
from both England and France how
the declarations in the Anglo-French
note proclaiming an embargo on all
commerce between Germany and neu-
trail countries were to be carried into
effect. The message to London was
as follows:
Washington, March 8, 1915.
/ In regard TO the recent commuhica-
/ tions received from the British ana
French governments concerning re-
straints upon commerce with Germany,
please communicate with the British
/ Foreign Office in the sense following:
The difficulty of determining action
| upon the British ana Frencn declara-
tions of intended retaliation upon COM
merce with Germany lies in the nature
of the proposed measures in their re-
lation TO commerce by neutrals.
While it appears that the inten-
tion is to interfere with and take into
custody all ships, both outgoing and
| incoming. trading with Germany, when
| is in effect blockade OF German ports,
the rule of blockade that ship at
tempting to enter or leave German
port regardless of the character of its
] 10 4 ph il
serted.
The language of the declaration is
"the British and French governments
will. therefore. hold themselves free TO
detain and take into port ships carry
ing goods of presumed enemy destina-
tion, ownership or origin. 1t is not in
tended to confscate such vessels or
cargoes unless they would otherwise
be liable 10 condemnation
The first sentence claims right
pertaining only TO state OF blockade.
The last sentence proposes a treat
ment Of ships and cargoes as if no
blockade existed. The two together
present a proposed course of action
previously unknown to international
law.
As a consequence neutrals have no
standard by which to measure their
rights or TO avoid danger to their ships
and cargoes. The paradoxical situation
thus created should be changed and the
declaring powers ought to assert
whether they rely upon the rules gov
erning a blockade or the rules applica-
bic when no blockade exists.
The declaration presents other per-
plextes. The last sentence quoted in
dicates that the rules of contraband
are to be applied to cargoes detained.
The rule covering non-contraband artl-
cles carried in neutral bottoms is that
the cargoes shall be released and the
ships allowed to proceed. This rule
cannot under the first sentence quoted
be applied as TO destination. What
then is to be done with a cargo OF non
contraband goods detained under the
declaration? The same question may
be asked as to conditional contraband
carGoes.
Limit Radius of Activity.
The foregoing comments apply to
cargoes destined for Germany. Car
goes coming out of German ports pre-
sent another problem under the terms
of the declaration. Under the rules
governing enemy exports only goods
owned by enemy subjects in enemy
bottoms are subject to seizure and con
demnation. Yet by the declaration it
is purposed to seize and take into port
all goods of enemy ownership and
origin The word origin is particu-
larly significant. The origin of goods
destined to neutral territory on neu-
tral ships is not and never has been a
ground for forfeiture except in case
a blockade is declared and maintained.
What then would the seizure amount
] 4. 20 Aalo ~
the delivery of the goods? The decla-
ration does not indicate what disposi-
tion would be made OF such cargoeS II
owned by neutral or if owned by an
enemy subject. Would a different rule
be applied according TO ownership? II
so, upon what principles of interna-
tional law would it rest? And upon
what rule if no blockade is declared
and maintained could the cargo OF a
neutral ship sailing out of German
port be condemned? If it is not con-
demned, what other legal course is
there but to release it?
While this government is fully
alive TO the possibility that the meth
ods of modern naval warfare, particu-
larly in the use of submarine for both
defensive and offensive operations,
may make the former means Of main
} I ta!nln8 Dlo0Hade phySlcal llhpoSsl =
. bility, it feels that it can be urged
with great force that there should be
also some limit TO the radius of ac-
, tiyity,' and especially so If this action
, by the belligerents can be construed
, to be a blockade. ! would certainly
create a serious state of affairs il, for
example, an American vessel laden
with a cargo of German origin should
escape the British patrol in European
waters only TO be held up BY a cruiser
off New York and taken to Halifax.
Similar cablegram sent TO Paris.
; pPYAN