New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-09-20

Hay protested that the presumption of
enemy destination was not warranted,
and that proofs Of innocent destination
had been demanded of the owners of
the cargo which could not possibly be
produced The Russian government
acknowledged the justice of the pro-
test, and released the cargoes.
Secretary Hays instructions, sent to
Ambassador Mccormick at st. Peters
burg on January l3, 1905, contained the
following:
"If the cargo were condemned on the
ground that the neutral claimant had
not offered proofs that no part of the
cargo could eventually reach the
enemy's forces. it would override the
universal presumption in favor of in
nocence by demanding impossible
proofs. II proof were required on the
part of the neutral claimant TO show
that the cargo was destined only TO
pacific uses, to what extent must he
adduce proofs? Must he show that
none OF the cargo would eventually
reach the enemy's forces? II proof so
comprehensive be wanting. would the
whole cargo be condemned? II il were
not shown by the captor that the con-
slgnee was an agent or contractor OF
the enemy's government, must proof be
sell to one who Is such agent, even
though the purchaser might conceal his
agency
The law OF nations affords no an
swer to these questions, and il must
therefore be presumed that it does not
authorize any seizure and condemna-
ton on the mere ground of the posi-
bility Of supplies reaching the military
or naval forces of the enemy"
The case of the packers is held TO be
even stronger than that of the claim
ants in the case Of the Arabia, as the
latter was bound for r Japanese port,
while the meat cargoes just condemned
were consigned TO Denmark.
Secretary Hays note urges further
that the Russian governments position
would be unobjectionable If the steps
contemplated were an effective block
ade OF tho ports of the enemy, but It
ia obvious that the extensive object
sought could be practically, completely
and lawfully accomplished in no other
way This recalls the representations
TO Great Britain on the subject OF the
declared blockade Of Germany.
Russian and British Attitudes Alike.
The attitude of the Russian govern
ment during the war with Japan was
in many ways not unlike Great BIZ
tain's present attitude. Not only did
Russia declare cotton contraband or
war, as England has done, but her reg
ulations concerning neutral commerce
were based on similar presumptlons.
In language which recalls that of the
British Order in Council. the Russian
government declared that It would be
compelled to take such steps as would
be necessary TO prevent supplies OF
any character ultimately intended for
the use of the enemy from reaching
their destination"
The same argument used against
Russia ten years ago is applicable 70
Great Britain now. officials declare
They say that the prize court IN con-
demning the meat cargoes has acted on
presumption that cannot measure up TO
the requirement of a reasonable sus-
picion," and the burden of proof, there
fore, rests with the officers of the
Crown. No proof Of enemy destina-
ton has been adduced. so far as is
known here, in the packers cases, and
the presumption of guilt has been
based almost entirely on the abnormal
inportations of meat products by Den
mark.
Great Britain has judged the cases.
il is held. on basis that would leave
no escape for the American shippers
except by producing proofs that are
bv their very nature impossible:
namely. that the goods in question
could not possibly reach the enemy
In the view of State Department Off
cials this procedure is illegal in the
highest degree, and nullifies the safe
guards which the law is supposed TO
afford the parties to a suit.