Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1916-10-16
ANSWER OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
FRANCE TO AMERICAN PRO-
TEST ANALYZEp.
CONTROVERSY WHERE 1T
STOOD BEFORE PROTEST
Allied Memorandum Devoted Largely
to Argument Intended to Refute
Contentious Of United States-No
Purpose Expressed Of Modif"ins
Policy Toward Mails.

Washington, Oct. 16.--In the opinion
liof high official of the administration
thoroughly conversant with the lega
questions involved, the identical replies
of Great Britain and France to the Sec
ond American protest against Interior
ence with United States mail make nc
concessions whatever.
AS this official sees the situation
following the publication Of the Anglo
French reply, the controversy is just
where it was before the United States
sent it's vigorous protest of May "a, de-
manding a radical change of policy
which would restore to the United
States it's full rights as a neutral"
According to this official, the allied
memorandum is devoted largely to an
argument intended to refute the con-
tentions of the United States, and does
not even express purpose to modify
the practice characterized by the
American government as "1awless."
Cite False Presidents.
"a long list of precedents are cited,
none of which presents a case in point
or one that goes anything like as far
as Great Britain has gone in the pres
ent instance" he said.
England and France. in effect, say
they propose to treat all mail. regard
less of its character as merchandise.
The United States has not conceded
the right of Great Britain to search
neutral letter mail on the high seas.
This right cannot well be conceded,
since the presidents are the other way.
THE position taken by the allies in
this particular is most extraordinary.
There can be no real doubt as to the
American contention that Great Brit
ain and France have no right to inter-
cept neutral mails on the high seas
and subject them to the same treat
ment as in their own ports.
when Great Britain in her first re-
ply, and again in this reply, announced
she would not exercise this right on
the high seas for the present she ad-
mitted that her right to do so was at
least doubtful, even from her own
standpoint.
Rule Is Quite Clear.
"As a matter of fact, the rule is quite
clear that belligerent has no right
to intercept neutral mail on the high
seas. Not having this right on the
high seas, obviously France and Great
Britain cannot bestow this right upon
thmselves by compelling neutral ships,
by one device or another, to enter their
territorial waters and there subject the
mails to a search not lawful on the
high seas.
"Or!cials in close touch with inter
national affairs have been unable to
discover any treaty. convention. or rule
Of international law with provision on
which Great Britain can properly base
its practice of taking ships into terri
torial waters for the examination of
their mail.
ut looks as if Great Britain and
France. the latter merely following
England's lead, lacking precedents,
have decided to make new rules for
their own conduct during the present
war If they are followed the recog-
nized rules and precedents the contro-
versy between the United States and
Great Britain would not have arisen.
An illogical Defense.
Numerous citations are given in the
identical replies of France and Great
Britain. In those cases in which a
radically different course of action is
shown to have been followed by the
United States or some other county,
the allies point out that the cases pre-
sent no parallel. They quote little
from any of the cases advanced as
sustaining even in part their conten-
TONS The natural and only assump-
ton to be drawn from this is that the
cases contain nothing stronger in sup
port of the Anglo French position or it
would have been included.
1t is freely concede that the mails