New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-11-15

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: As one who has Just read the strik-
ing editorial where the British Go Wrong"
printed in The Tribune Of yesterday, will you
permit me to ask whether the United States
went wrong during the four years OF the
Civil War in which the government IN us
commendable determination to maintain the
freedom OF the seas, captured no fewer than
LAC and destroyed no less than 355 neutral
trading vessels, causing total loss to Brit
ish owners OF at least s30,000000?
The world has moved since 1s6l-65; modern
inventions and modern conditions have
modified the practice Of blockade, so that
now the effectiveness Of . blockade must in
each case be a question Of fact Gas stated in
the decision of the Supreme Court in the
Olnde Rodriguez case, TIA U. S., p. 500 "tc
be determined by evidence and with regard
TO all the circumstances" To-day, as in
1851, the place Of landing may be many miles
distant from the ultimate destination Of the
goods, and the ostensible destination Of a
reutra port is no guarantee that the ultimate
destination Of cargo is not the country Of
a belligerent. This condition was felt during
the Civil War and received the attention of
the Supreme Court Of the United States in
the often quoted case Of the Springbok.
She was British ship on a voyage from
Londcn to Nassau, and was seized by
United States cruiser and sent in for judi
cation on the ground that she was carrying
contraband with the intention Of breaking
the blockade and allowing the cargo to be
L.
the Southern States. In this case the Su-
preme Court held that the evidence showed
the cargo was not intended for Nassau, but
was intended TO be transshipped there and
thence carried on to rebel ports in violation
of the blockade. Therefore, the voyage was,
both in law and according to the intentions
of the parties, but one voyage-from Lon
don to the blockaded ports-and the cargo
was liable to seizure during any part Of that
voyage (5 Wall, p. y. The Supreme Court
of the United States rendered decisions to
the same effect in the cases of the Bermuda
Stephen Hart and Peterhof. Great Britain
protested against these decisions and made
them the subject Of claim before the
American Claims Commission, which was
appointed under the Treaty of 1871 but her
claim for the value Of the confscated cargo
was unanimously rejected. Professor Blunt
schlis "Droit International Codiie," par sl9,
reads: "If the ships goods are consigned
to a neutral port only in order to facilitate
their delivery TO the enemy they will be
contraband Of war and their seizure will be
justified"
In so far as have been able to follow the
matter Great Britain puts forward no claim
TO interfere with goods which are bona fide
destined for the use or consumption of
Neutral state, but only with the commerce
of the enemy passing through neutral states,
and. as Sr Edward Grey has stated it. "If
blockade can only become effective by ex-
tending it 10 the enemy commerce passing
through neutral ports, such an extension is
defensibe and in accordance with principles
which have met with general acceptance"
This, as the case of the Sprngbok shows, is
the doctrine established by the Supreme
Court of the United States. The representa-
tives of the United States at the conference
that was held in London conceded that
blockaders might be several hundred miles
off hostile coast.
Anent contraband: Did the North 20 wrong
when during the War OF Secession IL de-
clared cotton TO be contraband because, as
Mr.. Bayard wrote, some years later, "cotton
was to the Confederacy as much a muniton
of war as powder and bullet, because 1t fur
rished the chief means Of obtaining these
indispensables of war? II may be remem-
bered that this declaration paralyzed the cot
ton goods trade of Lancashire and for two
years compelled the mill operatives 10 live
on public charity. But England never ques-
toned the right OF the North to declare
cotton contraband Did England go wrong
in doing this!
In these dsys Of Ezekiel, what ass bscomeI