The Washington herald., 1915-03-18

sire TO minimize the Inconvenience to
which neutral interests will be sub
iected. 1t is their claim that by not
confiscating either vessels or cargoes
which may be detained in the enforce
ment of the new policy. the effects
upon neutrals will be much less irk-
some and injurious than would be
those Of q full blockade
The United States is invited by beth
governments to compare this act of
consideration for neutrals with what
is termed the barbarous policy of Ger
many in exposing neutrals to destruc-
ton of life and property by German
submarines.
Both France and Great Britain likewise
display tendency to find large meas
ure of the justification of their policy in
the alleged Ubiquitous character of the
German operations. Great Britain, par
ticularly, in replying to the. American
joint proposals to herself and Germany,
INDUCES in a general indictment of the
German conduct of the war; on six or
eight counts, maintaining, at the same
time. that the British adhered scrupu-
lously to the rules.
These harangues, as they are regarded
here. will not be taken into consideration
by the administration. which requires
that the belligerents deal with the United
States on the basis of their obligation
to this government and not with regard
to what one of the belligerents may be
doing to its enemies
Quote German Writers.
The most extended and waht is be-
lieved to be the ablest defense of the
allies policy is contained in the British
reply to the American joint proposals to
Germany and Great Britain. By quot
ing from nd n
writers. the British establish something
OF case in defense of a policy of cut
ting on an enemy from his supply of
foodstufs, even If such a policy affects
the civil population.
Furthermore. it is declared, the Ger
mans sank two ships laden with food
stuffS consigned to unfortifed ports in
Great Britain, even before the Inaugural
ton OF the submarine program. Tho
German submarine policy and the allies
blockade policy both have the same OBJ
jectives, the British deClare-that of cut
ting of all supplies from the enemy. the
difference between the policies being that
while I'VE propose TO attain II without
sacrihcinfi neutral ships or noncombat-
ant lives or intlictinS upon neutrals the
damage that must be entailed when Il
vessel ana Its cargo are sunk without
notice, examination. or trial"
Conflict Of Statements
Though the correspondence regard
ing the American joint proposals is now
regarded as a dead issue, one curious
conflict OF statement was noted in the
British and German replies to the
United States note. which officials here
are wholly unable to explain
The nlted States asked both bel
liSerentS to agree that neither would
use submarines to attack merchant
vessels of any nationality EXCEPT to
enforce the right of visit and search
To this the German government re-
piled with the statement that the Ger
man government would undertake not
to use their submarines to attach urr-
camille vessels OF any nag except when
necessary to enforce the right of visit
and search"
In the British reply. however. is this
1t is not understood from the Ger
mani reply that the German govern
ment is prepared /" albanian the
practice OF sinking British merchant
vessels by submarines"
This was ia part explained by the TACT
that the German declaration is followed
by the statement that in use visit and
search should establish the enemy ma
tiunaIlv or the presence OF cOntraband
on board = vessel the submarines would
proceed. N accordance with interna-
tional law. This. il is understood. the
British interpreted TO mean that British
cs>eiS and ncutrals CARVING contra
band. would fnrthw it'll be- sunk under
the rule that such action Is perm Tt"d II
the captor is not in position to take
the captured into port. as IS. OF course,
the case with submarines.