Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1916-01-05
GREAT BRITAIN'S ACTION A De
CLARATION OF WAR AGAINST
OUR COMMERCE..
rom The Waghington Post

sells laden with noncontraband car
goes bound to either belligerent or
neutral countries, we quote from the
official notes of the British foreign
Office as to the British position upon
cases Of precisely the same character
of those in which the British foreign
Office today takes diametrically the
opposite position of that which it
held in former cases.
During the Boer war, when Lord
Salisbury was asked to state the po-
sition of the British government re-
garding shipments Of foodstuffs, he
said
'Foodstuffs with a hostile destina-
tion can be considered contraband
Of war only If they are supplies for
the enemies forces. 1t is not suf-
ficient that they are capable of being
so used; it must be shown that this
was, in fact, their destination at the
time Of the seizure"
Yet in 1914, through the infamous
and inhumane order of council OF
August 20, even such foodstuffs were
made contraband of war and were
subject to seizure by British vessels
If consigned to any person in Ger
many, and even If moving to Ger
many through a neutral port.
The case in 1904, when Russia, a
belligerent then, seized a cargo of
flour and railway material consigned
to private concerns in Japan, the op-
posing belligerent, brought out the
positions OF the United States and
Great Britain upon that seizure in
the clearest possible light, and is so
conclusive that it leaves Great Brit
ain not a particle of defense for its
present unjust and tyrannical ac-
tions.
Lord Lansdowne then wrote to
Mr.. Choate, who at that time was
Ambassador to Great Britain, "The
test appeared to be whether there
are circumstances relating to any
particular cargo to show that il is
destined for military and naval use"
Lot our readers note well that this
cargo of flour and railway material
was consigned to private concerns in
o belligerent country, Japan, yet
Lord Lansdowne stated that the test
must be to show it was destined for
military and naval use.
The British order in council
smashes that Lansdowne test which
Choate But let our readers follow
Lord Lansdowne further in this
same case: His majesty's govern
ment further pointed out that the
decision Of the prize court of the
captor in such matters, in order to
be binding on neutral states, must
be in accordance with the recognized
rules and principles of international
law and procedure"
In other words, the British gov
ernment refused to recognize any de-
cision Of a prize court that did not
conform to the test as laid down and
abide by the principle involved.
Today the British government
cancels that test, wipes out interna-
tional law and procedure and DEGREES
that "oTders in council" be supreme.
During this same Russo-Japanese
war Thodore Roosevelt was Presi-
dent of the United States, John Hay
was Secretary Of State and Joseph
Choate was Ambassador to Great
Britain; and there is nothing upon
the record to show that there was
any difference of opinion of these
officials as to the rights of neutrals
to sell fOodstuffs to belligerents, and
surely not to neutrals.
This is what John Hay said to
Russia upon that point, and il may
be taken as granted that Theodore
Roosevelt as President approved the
note;
When war exists between power
full states it is vital to the legitimate
maritime commerce of neutral states
that there shall be no relaxation OF
the rule, no deviation from the cri-
terion for determining what consti-
tutes contraband of war, lawfully
subject to belligerent capture, name
ly, warlike nature, use and destina-
ton. Articles which, like arms and
ammunition, are by their nature OF
Jelfevident use are contraband OF
war If destined to enemy territory;
but articles like coal, cotton and pro-
visions, though if ordinarily capable
Of warlikc use, are not subject to
capture and conhscation unless
shown by evidence to be actually
destined for the military or naval
forces OF a belligerent"
If the principle which appears to
have been declared by the Vladi- |
vostok prize court and which has not
so far been disavOwed or explained
by his imperial majesty's govern
ment is acquiesced in. il means. if
carried into full execution, the COM
pletc destruction of all neutral COM
merce with the noncombatant popu-
lation of Japan; it obyiates the ne
cessity of blockades; it renders
meaningless the principles Of the de-
claration OF Paris set forth in the
imperial order OF February last that
blockade in order to be obligatory
must be effective; it obliterates all
distinction between commerce in
contraband and noncontraband
goods. and is in effect a declaration
Of war against commerce Of every
description between the people of
neutral and those OF belligerent
state
Let our readers note that these
words of Theodore Roosevelt and
John Hay were as against Russian
seizure of foodstuffs consigned to
private concerns in Japan, at war
with Russia at that time.
What would have been the words
Of these men If Russia had seized