The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1915-08-20

group of editorial opinions, concludes
that the notes of the British Govern
ment in reply to our protest of March
so, 1916, are regarded by leading edi-
! tors Of New York and throughout the
country as unsatisfactory and calling
for further protest by the United
States Government" But these ad
verse critics differ in the vigor of their
objections. The German American
press for instance, consider the notes
"a blunt refusal to respect American
commerce" Again, among the news |
papers printed in English there are
those who claim that Great Britain
4 is abusing her control of the seas"
rners, among them the Chicago Tri-
bune, hold that there is every indi-
cation that the correspondence will be
prolonged as result of the present
notes, only to be further complicated
by an expansion of British repressive
measures and by stronger American
protests against them Commenta-
tors of downright pro-German sympa-
thy remark with sardonic humor that
England after three months Of des-
picable procrastination" declines to
yield jot or title of our just de-
mands. But the Philadelphia Public
Ledger, which ranks with the jour
nails that believe that the whole ques-
ton remains open to argument, adj
monishes us that there is nothing in
the note to arouse ill-feeling or to
justify sharp language" England's
whole tone and temper" discloses no
wish to deliberately transgress the
principle of international law, and
this journal suggests that the points
in dispute may be referred to arbi-
tration, if an agreement can not be
reached, without loss of dignity" Then
with a caution to those that would
make our grievance" against England
appear the same as our grievance"
, against Germany, the Public Ledger
J observes:
There is no question with Great
Brittany of any defiance of justice and
, humanity. There are no intolerable
: injuries for which redress must be
demanded. 1t would be an irrepar-
(, able mistake, it would be almost a
a crime, to treat this issue as one of
O consequences with that which
the conduct of Germany has provoked"
CI,p IF rhn1
9 trary mind, puts Britain's offense on
: all tours with that of Germany argu-
9 ing sit is poor rule that doesn't work
, both ways" We read;
, "Germany's defense of submarine
outrages was that they were necessary
q adaptations of naval warfare to mod
q ern conditions. We have told her, in
:, substance that modern conditions
se"st be adapted to inalienable rights,
not the revers..-ys-..
l. Great Britain's defense OF hefe,er-
e sistent invasion of our rights of non
d contraband commerce with neutral
e ports is that her obstructive measures
a constitute nothing more than an adap-
h tation of the old principle of block
1t ade to the peculiar circumstances OF
Is this war.
II "A reply similar to that already
# made to Germany is due to Great Bri-
: tain"
d Interesting in this connection is the
IL view of the New York Evening Sun
d which says that while it is far from
: believing that Sir Edward Grey writes
h Finis to the controversy he GER
X tainly assures it's continuance within
q the bounds of diplomatic representa-
It ton and legal augmentation" This
e journal adds
n stripped to the bone, the assump-
e tons and claims of the British note
+ are:
IL 81 Blockade is an allowable exped-
l. lent in war.
d So Since blockade is allowable, ii
e is allowable to make it effective.
80 If the only way to render ii
# effective is to extend it to enemy com
. such extension is allowable.
4. Germany can carry on her com
merce through the neutral ports of
several countries almost as well as
i through her own.
C IS. Therefore a blockade of her
y ports alone would not be effective.
: IS. Therefore the Allies assert the
: right to extend their operations to the
It German commerce of neutral ports.
d u, In doing this a sincere effort is
i made to distinguish between the Ger
: man commerce of such neutral ports
d and their own legitimate trade for the
e Use and benefit of their own nationals.
j % In making the extension of
u y