The Twin Falls times. [volume] (Twin Falls, Idaho) 1905-1916, 1915-01-29
HOW THE PRESS TAKE THE BRI,
TISH REPLY

TISH REPLY
| The frank and friendly tone of the
preliminary British reply to our pro-
test of December % appeals to Ameri-
can editors, and though in essence it
seems to deny our claims, they hope
that the conciliatory spirit evidenced
presages less British interference with
our commerce under the plea of
aiming his virtual denial of our
grievances our press seem as a whole
by no means willing to accept Sir Ed
warl Grey's statements of fact at their
face value or to consider his argu-
ments conclusive. True, some believe
that the British diplomat has scored
on our State Department in the ex-
change of documents, or admit that
the British point of view is substan-
TALLY correct To others the British
document is "a skilfully worded denial
of American rights, and these believe
that England would like to exchange
polite notes Indefinitely while her
cruisers harried out shipping, and ev-
en- assert with the Washington Post,
that ''iust as Germany destroyed Bel
GUM on the plea of military necessity,
England proposes to destroy Ameri-
can commerce. But most of our edi-
/ tors remember. with the Detroit Free
Press, that the reply lis in no sense
a final settlement of position, that
lit is rather an acknowledgment Of
receipt of a note, or, at most, an OPP
ening of debate, and perhaps an init
nation of what is to be the general
trend of the final reply" So they
point out Sir Edward Grey's errors
and insist upon American rights with
the same candid friendliness and as,
surance of a peaceful settlement which
characterize the note prepared by thai
keen and urbane diplomat.
The American note was considered
in our issue for January g. The Bri
fish reply as published in the Ameri
can newspapers. opens with the usua
polite phrases, and then goes on t.
say:
His Maiesty's Government cordial,
concurs in the principle enunciate'
by the government of the United State,
that belligerent in dealing with trad
between neutrals should not interior,
unless such interference is necessar.
to protect the belligerent's nationa
safety, and then only to the extern
to which it is necessary. We shall
endeayor to keep our action within tn
limits of this principle, on the under
standing that it admits our right to in
terfere when such interference is no
with the bonafide trade between tn
United States and another neutra
country, but with trade in contraband
destined for the enemy's country, an
we are ready, whenever our action ma
unintentionally exceed this principle
to make redress"
Sir Edward Grey does not think hi
| Government to blame for America
trade losses in the war These, h
says, are due in general to 'the exist
enee of state of war and consequen
diminution of purchasing power an
shrinkage of trade" especially in sue
countries as the United Kingdom
France, and Germany, rather than t
interference with American trade wit
neutrals. And he wonders whethe
such American trade really has bee
hampered, since exports from Ne,
York to Denmark, Sweden, Norwa,
and Italy were, according to figures b
cites, much greater in November, 1871.
. than in November, 1918, and bu
slightly less In the case Of Hollan,
> The American note objected to the dt
tentioa of copper cargoes. Sir Edwar
Grey has figures covering approx
mately the first five months of tn
war. showing that our exports to Ital
were double those of the correspond
ling period in 1918, and revealing