New-York tribune., 1915-03-16

ciples in international law. Even recog-
mixing that the document defines Grest
Britain's policy as one of retaliation
and considering the position taken by
the United States as q neutral, when
Germany started tho interchange OF
retaliatory policies. that unwlllingness
to abide by the limitations of interns-
tional law was form of national SELF
indulgence intolerable 10 the United
States, there yet remain portions or
the Order in Council which will pro-
woke pertinent interrogatories, If not
vigorous protests.
The enunciation of a policy Of stop
ping all expectations to Great Britalns
enemies and Of seizing all cargoes eX-
ported from Germany, whether IN neu-
tral or enemy vessels. Is something
which the United States does not ap-
prove. The British promise that goods
outbound from Germany so seized' ex-
cept when proved 20 be enemy owned,
will result in their detention or the
detention Of the funds received
through their condemnation and sale
by q prize court until after the ces-
Sation OF hostilities is bound 10 pro-
woke protest from the State Depart.
ment The officials feel that, even II
the right to divert these goods from
the enemy's use was Great brlta!h
right, the detention of the goods AFTER
diversion or the Withholding OF pay.
uent therefor for an unlimited period
works a hardship on the neutral owner
too Considerable 20 be allowed TO pass
without objection.
Too Much Power Said To BE Given
Il is felt that in this the right re-
posed in the prize court TO hold for an
indefinite period the goods or the cas9
product thereof Is altogether 100 OIoau
and the Order IN Council - held 10 glNe
100 much power 20 the prize court Oh
this point the order says;
"A1 goods laden at such ports must
DO discharged in a British or aIhed
mort. Goods so discharged in a Brlt-
ish port shall be placed IN the CUSTODY
Of the marshal of the prize court, ana
if not reduisltiOued for the use OF his
majesty shall be detained or sold under
the direction Of the prize court.
IL is also felt that the Order IN Coun,
Gil is not sufficiently clear with regard
70 the action of the prize courts after
seized ships and cargoes have been
haied there.
The general result Of the operation
Of the order IN Council in the opinion
of American officials Will be that the
American producer will be put TO the
extremity of exacting cash IN advance
for all goods destined directly or lndl-
rectly for Germany or allies OF that
power This, IN combination with the
threat OF destruction held out under the
German war zone declaration on goodS
shipped toward the Allies through elther
French or British ports, places what IS
believed TO be an lnsurmOuntaDIe Dur-
den on American commerce, and along
this line viii the representations TO
Great Britain and her allies be framed
There is only one important prece-
dent for the present situation IN the
history of Americas relations with
foreign powcrs This is found IN me
attitude assumed by the United States
toward both Great Britain and France
a the time those nations were at each
others throats in the days OF Napoleon
], when. not only did the United States
protest, but as retaliatory measures re-
sorted TO embargo and nGa-iHtercourse'
John Bassett Moore Quoted.
4 review Of the procedure Of the
United States government at that time
js found In John Bassett Moores "Dl-
gest Of international Law" which says;
"On April 3, 1906, the British gov.
ernment, in retaliation for a decree OF
Prussia. issued on the occupation OF
Hanover. excluding British trade, de-
clared the mouths of the Inns, Neser,
Elbe and Trave TO be in state or
blockade. On May l6 similar declara-
tion was made IN respect OF the whole
coast OF the continent, from the RIVER
Elbe to the port Of Brest, inclusive. In
the following September this blockade
was declared 10 be discontinued as 10
the coast from the Elbe 70 the Ems
On November p, 1906, Napoleon issued
from the imperial camp at Berhn a
decree which declared the British Isl
am to be in state Of blockade ana
all commerce and correspondence with
them 20 be prohibited.
referring TO this decree, Lord How
ick, on January 7, 1907, issued an
order in Council, by which neutral
vessels we're forbidden TO trade from
one port to another, both Of which
were in The possession or control OF
France or her allies. On the llth OF
November, further orders IN council
were issued, which prohibited neutra!
vessels from trading with the ports Of
France and her allies and with all ports
IN Europe from which, though they
were not at war with Great Britain.
the British flag was excluded, unless
such vessels should clear from Brt-
ism port under regulations TO be pre-
sclihed in the future.
"On December Il, 1907, Napoleon, in
retaliation for these orders, issued his
Milan decree, which. besides declaring
every ship that had submitted to
search by the English 20 be good
prize, repeated the declaration that the
British Islands were in state Of
blockade, aud declared that every ship
that should sail from r be destined
20 port in Great Britain or the Brit
ish possessions. or in any country oc-
cupied by the British troops, should be
Il good prize Against these various
orders and DEGREES the lifted States
protested, and as measures Of retalla-
tion rcsortcd 20 cmbargoes and non
intercourse. am in the case Of Great
Britain. which was aggravated by the
question Of impressment, eventually to
war"
Feeling in the War of 1912.
The feelings Of the United States in
regard TO the methods employed by
France aud Great Britain in their war