New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-04-06


intended for the enemy's govern
ment or armed forces. Il has been
conceded the right 10 establish and
maintain a blockade of an enemy's
ports and coasts and to capture
and condemn any vessel taken IN
trying to break the blockade. II IS
even conceded the right to detaln
and take to its own ports for JUDI
cial examination all vessels which
il suspects for substantial reasons
TO be engaged in Unneutral or con
traband service and 10 condemn
them If the suspicion is sustained.
But such rights, long clearly de-
fined both iu doctrine and practice,
have hitherto been held TO be the
only permi sible exceptions to the
principle o. universal equality OF
Sovereignty on the high seas as be
tween beliigerents and nations not
engaged in war.
II is confidently ass lmed that his
. majesty's government VIII not deny
that il is a rule sanctioned by gen
cral practice that, even though
blockade should exist and the doc
trinc of cOntrabaDd as 10 un-
blockaded territory be rigidly en-
forced. innocent shipments may be
freely transported 20 and from the
United States through neutral
countries to belligereut territory
without being sub ect to the penal
ties of contrabaud traffic or breach
of blockade, much les 20 detention,
reuuisition or confiscatlon.
Moreover, the rules Of the Dec
laration of Paris OF 1856 among
them that free ships make free
eoods-wili hardly a. this day be
disputed by the signatures Of tha'
solemn agreement.
Would BE Unneutral.
His majesty's government, like
The government Of the United
States. has often and explicitly
held that these rights represent the
best usage Of warfare IN the deal
iugs OF bclligerents with neutrais
al sea. In this connection ] desire
to direct attention TO the opinion
of the Chief Justice Of the United
States IN the case Of the Peterhot,
which arose out Of the civil war;
and TO the fact that that OPINION
was unanimously sustained IN the
award of the arbitration commits
sion Of 1871, 20 which the case was
presented at the request OF Great
Britain. From that time 10 the
Declaration of London Of 1909,
adopted with notifications by the
Order in Council of the 23d Of Oc-
tober last. these rights have not
been seriously questioned by the
British governm mt. And no claim
on the part Of Great Britain Of any
justification for interfering with
the clear rights OF the united
States and its citizens as neutrals
could be admitted TO admit II
would be to ASSUME a. attitude OF
Immortality toward the present
enemies Of Great Britain, when
would be obviously inconsistent
with the solemn obligations OF this
government in the present clrcum-
stances: and for Great Britain to
make such q claim would be for her
TO abandon and set at naught the
principles for which she has con-
sistently and earnestly commended
in other times and circumstances.
The note of his maJesty's prlncl-
pal Secretary Of State for Foreign
Affairs which accompanies the Or
der I'm Council, and which bears
the same date. notifies the govern
mcnt Of the United States of the
establishment Of a blockade, which
is. if defined by the terms of the
Order in Council, to include all the
coasts and ports Of Germany and
every port of possible access TO
enemy territory. But the novel
and quite unprecedented feature OF
that blockade, if we are to assume
il TO be properly SO defined, IS that
II embraces many neutral ports
and coasts. bars access TO them,
and subjects all neutral ships
seeking to approach them 10 the
same suspicion that would attach
TO them were they bound for the
ports Of the enemies OF Great
britain. and TO unusual risks and
penalties.
Invade Neutrals' Rights.
Il is manifest that such hmita-
tions risks and liabilities placed
upon the ships Of a neutral power
on the seas, beyond the right OF
visit and search and the right TO
prevent the shipment Of contra
band already referred 20, are a dis
tinct invasion OF the sovereign
rights Of the nation whose ships,
trade or commerce is lntertered
with.
The government Of the United
States Is, of course, not Obvious
TO the great changes which have
occurred IN the conditions and
means Of naval warfare since the
rules hitherto governing legal
blockade were formulated. Il
might be ready to admit that the
old form Of CLOSE" blockade, with
its Gordon Of ships i'm the immedl-
ate offing Of the blockaded ports.
is no longer practicable, in face OF
an enemy possessing the means
and opportunity 10 make an ef-
fective defence by the use of sub
marines, mines and air craft; but
il can hardly be maintained that,
whatever form Of effective block
adc may be made use of, It Is I'M
nossible 20 conform al least TO the
spirit and principles OF the estao-
lisbed rules of war. II the necessl-
,ies Of the case should seem 10
render il imperative that the cor
don of blockading vessels be eN-
tend>d across the approaches TO
any.s ghboring neutral port or
couI.,.-,, it would seem clear that