Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-11-08

tural suspicion and the practice Of
bringing them into port for the pur
pose. by search or otherwise. of OBJ
tanning evidence" and adds that. rely
Ing upon the regard of the British gov
crnment for the principles of Justice
so frequently and uniformly manifested
prior to the present war. this govern
ment anticipates that the British gov
crnment will instruct their officers to
refrain from these vexatious and il
legal practices"
u6). Directing particular attention
to the so-called BLOCKADE measures
imposed by the order in council of
March IL. the British note of July %
last Is cited to confirm the intention
Ito establish q blockade" After over
six ;nonths application Of the blockade
order. the note says, "the experience of
american citizens has convinced the
Great Britain has been successful in
her efforts to distinguish between
enemy ana neutral trade"
1O. The practice OF requiring con-
sisnor to prove that his shipments are
not bound to an enemy OF Great Britain.
even when articles are OH the embargo
list of the neutral country to which
they are destined. is characterized as
"harrassins to neutral traders"
MISCONCEIVED INTENTIONS
OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT
IS). While the United States gov
eminent was at first inclined to view
with lcniency the British measures
which were termed in tn" correspon-
dencc. but not in the order In council.
Of March II. Il blockade because of
the assurances of the British govern
ment that Inconvenience to neutral
trade would he minimized by the dis
erection left to the courts in the appli-
cation of the order In council. and by
} the instructions which 1t was said
would be issued to the administra tive
and other authorities having to do with
the execution of the so-callcd block
adc' measures. this government is now
forced to the realization that its cx-
pectations, which were fully set forth
in It's note of March 80, were ba sed
on misconception Of the intentions of
the British government. Desiring TO
AVOID controversy, and in the eXpec-
tation that the administration of the
order in council would conform to the
established rules of international law,
this government has until now reserved
the question of the actual validity OF
tAc order III council OF March II, inso-
far as IL is considered by the govern
ment Of Great Britain 10 establish a
blockade within the meaning OF that
term as understood in the law and
practices Of nations; but in the circum-
stances now developed it feels that it
can no longer permit the validity of
the alleged blockade to remain UNI
challenged"
90. Pointing out that in accordance
with the Declaration of Paris in 1856
the effectiveness of blockade is
manifestly question OF fact" the
United States says ii is common
knowledge that the German coasts are
open to trade with the Scandinavian
countries. The recent placing Of cot
ton on the British list of contraband
Is spoken of as making it appear that
the British government themselves
nave been forced to the conclusion that
the blockade is ineffective to prevent
shipments of cotton from reaching their
enemies. or else that they are doubtful
rs to the legality of the form of block
ade which they have sought TO main
tain"
600. Decisions are cited to show that
II Is AN essential principle. universally
accepted. that blockade must applv
impartially 10 the ships of all nations.
and 1t is added that 'if bclligcrerts
themselves trade with blockadcd ports"
the principle in the past has been that
they cannot he regarded as effectively
blockaded. These decisions are re-
fcrred to since IL is Il matter OF COM
mon Knowledge that Great Britain ex-
ports and rc-cXports large quantities
OF merchandise TO Norway. Sweden.
Denmark and Holland, whose ports, 70
far as American commerce is concerned.
she regards as blockadcd."
MANY CASES CITED 10 Support
CONTENTION OF UNITED STATES
t2D. The principles OF the laws of
nations which forbidS the blockade of
neutral ports in time OF war, embod-
led III that part of the Declaration of
London, adopted by Great Britain rs
to blockade. are discussed. and sew
cral decisions of the British prize
courts prior TO the present war, as
we'll as the Matamoras cases in
the American Civil War. are recalled
10 support the contention OF the United
States.
t22). Measured by the three uni
vcrsally conceded tests. the present
British measures cannot be regarded
rs constituting blockade in law, in
practice or in effect"
(23). Formal notice is given that the
blockade. which Great Britain claims
10 have instituted under the order in
council Of March II. cannot be recog-
nized as a legal blockade by the United
States"
go. The British view of the famous
springbok case before the outbreak of
the present war is cited to support
the American contention
'-o 10 %, lHcluSlNc). 1neSe deal eX-
haustivcly with the modes of judic,al
redress for citizens of neutral cour-
tries. and reaches certain general COZ :
illusions. THE government OF the
United States" the note sage. has
viewed with surprise and concern the
attempt of His Majesty's government
to confer upon the British prize courts
jurisdiction by this illegal exercise OF
force. III order that these courts may
apply to vessels and cargocs OF ncu-
trail nationalities. seized on the high
seas. municipal laws and orders which
can only rightfully be enforcible with
in the territorial waters of Great Bri-
tain or against vessels OF British ma
tionality when on the high seas.
The United States govern
ment feels that ii cannot reasonably
be expected to advise its citizens TO
seek redress before tribunals which
are. in its opinion, unauthorized by the
unrestricted application OF information
nj law to grant reparation. nor to re-
frain from presenting their claims di-
rectly to the British government
through diplomatic channels
Secretary Lansing, moreover, denies
in this connection that the charges
such as pilotagc wharfage. unload
ing costs, etc. against detained YES