Arizona republican., 1915-08-04


 step in their power to overcome tho common enemy in view of thu shocking violation of the recognized rules and principles of civilized war , fare, of which he has been guilty , during the present struggle"
 Sir Edward then refers to the atrocities in Belgium, the poisoning of wells in German Southwest Africa the use of poisonous gases against the allied troops in Flanders and fin ally to the sinking of the Lusitania to show how indispensable it is that we should leave unused no jus tfia ble method of defending our selves
 With reference to the blockade oi neutral ports the note refers to the American civil war blockade of 300C miles of coast with a small number of vessels and recalls how the United States finally took recourse to blockading "neighboring neutral territory which afforded convenient centers from which contraband could be introduced into confederate terri tory, and from which blockade run ming would be facilitated The note refers to the case of the British ship Springbok, seized by United States cruisers in the civil war while bound to the British West Indies because the cargo. it was charged. was to be transshipped to the Confederate states. The supreme court of the United States sustained ct hn 2 of group of prominent international Ia awyers, although the United States and British governments took the broader view and recognized the development of the older method oi blockade. No protest was made by Great Britain.
 The note reviews at some length the various forms in which the blockades have been maintained to show there has been no uniformity of practlce in the very essential points and de clared:
 ''One principle which is fundamenta and has obtained universal recognl- ton. is that by means of blockade beIligerent is entitled to cut off by effective means sea-borne commerce of an enemy.
 Consequently Sir Edward argues. il is impossible to maintain that the right of belligerent to intercept commerce of an enemy can be limited in the way suggested by tn American notes on the subject.
 There are many cases" he says, ''ir which proofs that goods are enemy property would afford strong evidence
 that they are of enemy origin ol enemy destination, and it is only II such cases that we are detaining them Where proof of enemy ownership would afford no evidence of sucf origin or destination, we do not prac- tice detaining the goods"
 Sir Edwards note closes with the observation that figures of recent months show the increased oppor' tunities afforded by the war fol American commerce has more thar compensated for the loss of the Ger man and Austrian markets. We sh continue to apply these measure: with every desire to occasion thu least possible amount of inconvenience to the persons engaged in legitimate commerce"
 In a supplemental note, which is il reply to the American vaceat givine notice that the United States will not recognize orders in council in lieu of international law, Sid Edward writes he "does not understand tC what divergence of views as to the principles of law applicable in the cases before the prize court, the government of the United States refers, for I am not aware that any conditions existing between the two countries as to prin- ciples of law are applicable in the cases before such courts"
 Sir Edward compares the rules gov e~ning the British prize courts with the rules applied by the American prize courts, referring especially to the American case of the Amy Warwick before the United States supreme court where it was held that prize courts are subject to instructions from their own sovereign
 In the absence of such instructions as to their jurisdiction and rules a decision is to be ascertained by refer ence to the known powers of such tribunals and the principles by which they are governed under the public law. and the practice of nations. It would appear therefore that the prin- ciples applied by the prize courts of the two countries are identical
 The supplemental note then proceeds with a long legal argument to demon- strete tine practicability of the prize court being governed bX international law and at the same time by municipal law in form of orders-in- council. 1t finally comes to the case of the steam