The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1915-03-18
F. H. Rogers & Co.


complaint can be made of this Britist
commensurate. The war zone policy
trampled international law under foot at
ruthlessly as the invasion of Belgium
and justified Great Britain in launching
against Germany any measure OF retalia'
ton consistent with common humanity
in the conduct of war. Its effect upon
neutral commerce is another matter, and
in this aspect only it concerns the United
States, in common with other neutral
nations.
AS Great Britain must frankly admit
| it is a new departure in maritime war
fare, in which her position is that, as
her enemy has ceased to play the game
according to the esta blished rules, the
stern necessity of war has driven her
also to depart from them. New occa-
sions make new duties and they may
make new rights. 1t is thus, indeed,
that international law has principally
been evolved from the actual practice of
nations from time to time, according to
the exigencies of the situation. The
moral justification of Great Britain is
sufficient. The only important question
for us is whether this measure, practi-
cally admitted to be formal trespass
upon neutral rights is, under the cir
cumstances, an unwarrantable step in
that direction, and, if so, how the neutral
powers should meet it.
A single reading OF the order is enough
to disclose that it is a radical interior
ence with the commercial rights OF neu-
trails, which must at least be made II
subject of vigorous protest 1t is equally
apparent, upon comparing its probable
effects with what Great Britain has an
unquestioned right to do by way OF form
al blockade that the actual injury here
to neutral commerce can hardly be great
er. and ii may be less A formal block
ade of the German ports, which the vast
naval resources of Great Britain would
probably enable her TO make, if driven
to it, would at once put an end TO all
foreign commerce with that country,
with the certainty Of capture and con
demnation of any neutral vessel with
its cargo, entering a German port, or
destruction on the spot, If resisting. Tn
der the order in council. ships bound TO
German ports must be diverted TO a neu-
trail or discharged in British port. Ships
bound from German ports or for neutral
ports, carrying goods Of enemy owner
ship or destination, must discharge in
British or allied port. The order plainly
that all neutral goods not
contraband Of war, if not requisitiontd
BY the government and paid for, are to
be restored under direction Of the prize
courts. The condemnation Of neutral
ships is not proposed, except in the single
case OF proceeding 10 an enemy port
after clearing from a British or allied
port for some other
Without going further into details too
20 b. dealt with here il is
apparent that reasonable attempt Il
made to confne the injury 10 neutral
trade to the narrowest limits consistent
with the purpose Of the order 70 cut of
the foreign trade Of Germany. Neutral
lives. al least, are not threatened. Men
trail property Is not left 20 the arbitra
ment Of the submarine but committed /
10 the courts. II is an informal and 4
unpracticed way of doing what I
might lawfully ~ done by other means 4
with equal injury 10 neutral trade. Tn /
fortunate as IL Is that the calamity Of 4
Europe must fall 10 some extent upon 4
the neutral nations. there il nothing here 4
10 warrant any hostile demonstration |
% call for more than diplomatic nego
tintion in which an neutral rights win I
D. conceded and adjusted in I
damages, j not otherwise Neither Is
here any material for the active propa
zanda which aims % stir mp strife be-
tween the United States and Great Brit
iin Boston Herald