Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-02-03
NEUTRAL STATES.


The British government has failed to appreciate at its
full value the moral support which it has received and is
still receiving, from the neutral world which is beyond
question strongly favorable to the of the allies. We
doubt whether that sympathy will be chilled But at the
time the allies ought not to presume 1t, and GER
tany they should not seek to capitalize it. 1t is not
likely that the historian of the twentyrst century will
argue and with that moral causes had much to do
with determining the issue of the present war.
The government of Great Britain has assumed that the
neutral world favorable to the aleS-which u.s. OF
course uebut it has mistakenly concluded that neutral
states would be glad to surrender their sovereignty for
the sake of in which they believed For the ques
ton presented to the United States as to other
trails not of trade but of sovereignty We IN this
country do not feel this much ports not
bockaded But can easily imagine the irritation felt
III Sweden whose ports have been treated much as they
would have been had they been German Yet there is
nothing clearer than that there cam under international
law, be blockade of neutral ports. The rule is absolute
and subject to exceptions Undoubtedly under the
doctrine of the continuous voyage beligerent has the
right to seize contlaband goods consigned to neutral
port if there is to beleveand it must be good
reason-hat the ultimate destination is an enemy coun
try This principle is not denied questioned by
any neutral But this is very different thing from
claim Of the right to blockade neutral ports. If Germany
at with Great Britain alone, would the British
government expect that the American government would
consent to blockade of New York the ground that
shipments through that port might reach Canada2
There has been much loose thinking this subject,
and the British government if it may be judged by its
diplomatic utteances has shared III it. The rules govern
ing blockade and those governing cOntraband have been
sadly confused. When blockade is lawfully applied all
goods-and not simply contraband- excluded. Surely
it will not be pretended that there any right to exclude
all goods from neutral countries. Unless is willing to
admit this admit that there be blockade
of neutral ports On the other hand when there is
blockade OF enemy country, contraband may be
Guided by seizure if it destined to such country-eher
directly indirecty-no matter where what ship
found. In civil exercised both rights, but in
the main kept them distinct 1t important that they be
kept distinct in thinking.
The complaint is not that Great Britain is interfering
with trade for this she would have right to doeven to
the point of destroying it-by blockade of Germany
And no neutral nation would dream of Directing. But
neutrals cannot permit, without protest. the writing
into international law of the principle that neutral ports
be blOckaded Great Britain has consented to
it in her and she would Our people have
not been greatly disturbed the question because
the first place. they mostly favorable to the allies and
in the second place they realize that the allies in the
dealings with neuras have not offended against the law
of humanity But it cannot be denied that neutrals
realizing and keenly the necessity of uphold
ing the law of nations. Whatever service they may be
able to render in this way will be appreciated by the
belgerents after the is and by of then
than by Great Britain. The question is not
tecnicalities but rather of fundamental principles