The Washington times., 1915-02-21

ton served to ptorect a cargo which all
parties agreed was contraband.
The Peterhor carried into Matamoros
a cargo Of trappings for artillery horses.
plies Of various kinds. blankets. and the
like. There was probably not In all
Mexico at that day a legitimate market
for such an amount OF these wares. but
the owner Of the vessel calmly main
tained that they were transacttng busi-
ness with the people Of Mexico through
tho emporium OF Matamoros. and II
there were any Interior destination for
their cargo they were not aware OF 1t!
Didn't Attempt Blockade.
When the Peterhoof case came be-
fore tho Supreme Court Of the United
States after having experienced the
troubles Of the prize court. the court
held that tho United States had not
attempted to blockade the Mexican
half of the Rio Grande, and could not
lawfully have done SO. AS to the al
legation of the circuituous trafnc
with the Confederacy through Mexico
tn. court said that. trade with neu-
trail port in immediate proximity 70
the territory Of one belligereht Is
other belligerent. Yet it is not the
less lawful on that account Neutral
traffic to or from a blockaded coun-
try by inland navigation or trans
portation Is not prohibited; and trace
from London to Matamoros, even with
intent to supply from Matamoros
goods to Texas. violated no blockade.
and could not be held unlawful. But
articles contraband OF war. on their
voy age to a neutral port with PROB
able Interior destination to the en-
emv were held liable to condemnation.
although the presumed transporta-
ton from the neutral port to the en- .
emy was to be effected and could
Only be effected. by overland convey
ance across neutral territory. And
"It is true that even these Goo1s.
II really intended for sale in the mar
ket OF Matamoros. would be iree from
liability, for contraband may be trans
ported by neutrals to a neutral port
if intended to make part Of it's general
stock in trade. But there is nothing
in the case which tends to convince
us that such was their real desttna-
tion. while all the circumstance IN.
dicate that these articles were at least
destined for .the use of the forces
then occupying Brownsville and other
places in the vicinity.
Widens Doctfine.
This decision. in an American court.
further greatly widens the doctrine OF
9ne CONTINUOUS NoSo AhS "pPAi>~
bility Of all this body Of American de-
cisions to Conditions now prevailing
in connection with the shipments OF
American cargoes to neutral ports
which. however. are in countries ad-
jacent to and liable to carry on COM
merce in these articles with the en-
emies of Great Britain will not be
oyeIiooked, 1t Is. indeed rather a
striking fact that although the United
States is the most important world
power now occupying strictly the po-
sition Of a neutral in relation to the
great European struggle, II Is never
thless the country which has formulat-
ed the most modern statement OF the
laws Of blockade and contraband, and
1t is also the country which now as
q neutral is most concerned in the ap-
plication Of those laws.
ANYBODY who will take the trouble to
read the proceedings. the testimony. and
the determination in the case of the
'Springbok." the Bermuda" and the
"Peterhoff." as we'll as many others aris-
ing out of this civil war traffic, will be
impressed with the fact that unless
American decisions are reversed by Brit
ish prize courts, then Americans may not
shin to Holland, Denmark, and Italy car
goes of supplies which may be fairly re-
garded as likely to be used by Ger
many or Austria, except at their peril.
On the other hand. the conduct of the
blockade of Southern ports during the
civil war seems to place the United
States Government distinctly on record
in antagonism to the claim now ad-
vanced by Germany in support OF its
submarine blockade Of the coast Of the
British Islands. The student OF the act
val experience OF the civil war blockade