New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-02-13

, practice of the nations. In lIs3 AM
/ 1895 the English government, then en-
gagged in war against France, under'
took TO reduce the enemy by famine
and seized all vessels laden with pro
visions which were bound to any
French port.
Protest Of the United States.
Against this policy the United States
! protested. Jefferson, who was then
/ Secretary Of State, asserting the righ,
J of Americans to carry the produce OF
their industry for exchange to all ma,
tions, belligerent or neutral, Just as u
the war did not exist. He argued tina,
il the United States permitted whea'
and corn TO be sent to Great Britain
and refused it to France such an ac'
Of partially might lead to war with
/ the latter power. -,
"If, on the other hand, they with
held supplies of provisions from
France, they should in like manne,I,
be bound to withhold them from all
enemies also, and thus to close 10
themselves all the ports OF Europe
where corn was in demand. This was
a dilemma which no pretext for fore'
ing the United States could be found
/ "Oreat Britain might, indeed, ne
]
enemy nation, but she can have no
right of doing it at our loss, nor VI
making US the instrument
AIN his international Law Profes-
sor Hall, Of the University Of Oxford
declares that England itself now re-
| garded its doctrine Of 1898 as wholly
| untenable.' So far as ] know, all au'
| thorities on international law through
out the nineteenth century agree win
Hall as to the illegality and inhuman'
ity Of putting stress upon non-com-
blatant population by interference
with their supply Of provisions. Here
at least German authorities are at one
with English authorities.
! "Bluntschli declares that 1T Is con-
! trary TO good morals to treat provi'
sions as contraband Of war, even
though they should be used for feed,
ing the army of the enemy And
Geffcken declares that no one any
, longer regards provisions as possible
articles Of contraband unless they are
destined strictly to the feet OF the
enemy
Great Britain's Attitude.
an recent times, however. there have
been two or three sporadic attempts
to make foodstuffs contraband OF war
but these we're quickly suppressed by
the energetic action and protest oil
! Great Britain and the United States
! In her war with China in 1885 France
declared rice contraband OF war, on
/ the ground Of is Importance IN feed,
| ing the Chinese population, as well
as the Chinese armies. Lord Gran.
Vile notified the French government
| nr,+ atp
/ slider itself bound by the decision OF
any prize court which should give ef'
| feet to this doctrine, and no seizure
of rice cargoes was made.
"The question again came up during
! the Boer War, and in the correspond
ence between the American and Brit
! ish governments Lord Salisbury, on
behalf of the latter, declared that:
+ Foodstuffs, with hostile destlna-
ton. can be considered contraband OF
war only if they are supplies for the
enemy's fsrces. II is not sufficient
that they are capable of being SO used
It must be shown that this was in fact
their destination at the time OF the
seizure
: "Once more, in the war with Japan
in 1904, the Russian government in
' cluded foodstuffs in their list of alb
solute contraband. The British gov
eminent at once protested against this
policy and in a very able dispatch to
John Hay, the American Secretary OF
State, refused TO acquiesce in the
policy Of the Russian government oil
to recognize the principle on which il
was based.
Russian Government Yields.
ale showed that this principle, il
! carried into full execution, would in
volye the complete destruction Of al
neutral commerce with the non-com
blatant population Of Japan, that it re
| lieved Russia of the necessity Of main.
tanning a blockade, that it obliteratec
all distinction between commerce ir
contraband and non-contraband goods
and that 1t was in effect a declaration
of war against commerce of every de
scription between the people Of q
neutral state and those Of a belligeren'
state.
"In consequence of these protests
the Russian government issued new
order and made foodstufs contrabant
of war only when destined for the gov
eminent or military or naval forces
of the enemy.
III Cdecs WHcIC NHts aiC
TO private individuals" the memoran
dunn proceeded, "these articles shall
not be considered as contrabsnd o.
war.
at is all the more amazing and all thu
more saddening to find the British gov
eminent in the present great war TAX
ing up a position on this question
which for more than century she hal
emphatically denounced. During al
this period England has gone han'
in hand with the United States il
asserting the unlimited right Of trad'
in foodstuffs between citizens or sub
jects of neutral states and the non
combatant populations Of belligeren
countries.
"Now that she has deserted thu
principle on which she has hithert,
stood, now that she has adopted the in
defensible and inhuman policy o
starving the women and children of al
/. enemy country, there is nothing TO
the government of the United State
to do but TO assert with renewed EN-
phasis and to defend with unwaverinl
, firmness the lnslienable right to neu
trail trade In foodstufs with the non
combatant of every belligerent coun
try SO long as its ports remain un
, blockaded.
- n S>rC vNY NyANY nVUE