South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1915-10-12
NOTES To FOREIGN
NATIONS READY
President Wilson Considering
Text of Reply TO England on
Sea Blockade.


WASHINGTON. oct. Il. - Pres't
Wilson now has before him the text
~ the reply OF the state department
TO Great Britain on her oppression OF
American and neutral commerce and
also the text Of the reply TO Germany
in the case Of the William +. Frye.
The Frye note is said 20 be salts
faetOry 20 the president and viii be
sent without delay as Germany has
met the views Of the state department
both on the principles of the law and
the terms OF settlement.
Officials Of the state department,
however are uncertain how the presl-
dent will deal with he text of the
note to Great Britain. Some Of them
think it's tone will be moderate.
Here Are Points in Note.
These pivotal points we're agreed
upon by all who had part In the writ
ing OF the note which is now before
him for revision.
First-Neither international law
nor the principle Of retaliation can
Justify the blockade. or the equiva-
lent OF a blockade, Of neutral ports
against the commerce Of the United
States or any neutral nation.
Second-Great Britain. with the
misuse OF the word contra band has
utilized ii TO justify the interceptiOn
Of commerce with such neutral ports.
Third-Great Britain has from time
10 time so extended her absolute con-
traband list that she has substantially
declared all the prime articles of COM
merce to be munitions of war"
FOurth-This view Of the case by
the United States is justified because
Great Britain by assuming all import
ed articles OF commerce through neu-
trail ports Will get TO the German army
has made them theoretically and act
ually munitions of war.
Fifth-The specific acts of Great
Britain in establishing the prize courts
as the tudge OF what are munitions
OF war and in actually Selling articles
OF commerce on that basis have put
her outside all the rules of interna-
tional law and the spirit of the decla-
ration OF London.
The state department holds that
blockade can only be established
against a belligerent port by a suifi-
Client naval or land force
Hold Cotton Not COntFaband.
IT holds also that the extension of
the character Of contra 'and to cotton
IS unjustifable for the same reason.
and in addition because Great Britain
has heretofore held not 10 consider
il.
other features of the reply are:
That the ships of Americans or other
neutralS which have been seized and
detained and thrown into prize courts
are held despite the well established
principle that international law pre-
scribes the manner in which visitation
and search sil5i. hS made and that
Great Britain has ign6eed in that re-
spects the ri ght Of neptrals every
N in aT
That Great britain's contention that
the burden Of proof OF Innocence of
destination is on the American shipper
is contrary TO all precedents and to
international law and that the United
states even in the civil war cases cited
by the British foreign office has never
held other than the captor should
present sufficient proof TO hold the
vessel
Argument One OF Denial.
The whole argument Of the United
states is one of denial of all the
points which are SEE up in the notes
of Sir Edward Grey and Lord Crewe.
The main point in the last British
communications was that Great Brit
ain had a right 10 mo longer consid-
err seizures as diplomatic questions
and 20 remit them at once without
diplomatic remedy into a prize court.
This principle is vigorously denied
on the ground that the sole cause for
its adoption is the assumption that
goods seized and sent 20 the prize
court were intended for the German
army and were therefore munitions
Of war" The state department does
not admit the British figures of in
crease of commerce with Holland and
the Netherlands as proof that the
commerce is for the benefit of the
German army.
The L. s admits an increase. but
explains il on the ground that all neu-
tral ports have been cut off for more
than a year from the commerce of
Germany and her allies.