Grand Forks herald., 1916-11-16

Clelr own or neutral countries WnlCQ
carry OH commercial dealings with the
central empires. But, while protests
may perhaps bring about modifica-
ton of the orders where the applica-
ton of the rule proves needlessly an
noying to neutrals, there has never
been the slightest probability that the
plan would be abandoned, or that or
ders, as whole, would be rescinded.
If, in time of peace, the government
of one nation should undertake, by
legislation or by executive order, to
prevent its citizens from dealing with
the citizens Of another nation with
which it had commercial treaties.
as exists between practically all civil
ized nations. such prohibition would
doubtless be held to be a violation Of
the treaties, if not a viola ton of the
principle of international law. But
under q state of war ordinary condi-
tions are suspended. and it is recog-
niZed everywhere that the first Busi-
ness Of q nation at war is to protect
itself. Nations at war naturally do
not trade with each other And the
conditions Of their trade with others is
certain to he governed by the exigen-
cies of the military situation. If. for
instance, Great Britain or France. or
al! of the allies together. should de-
eide that the military necessities Of
the time demanded that all trade with
foreign nations should be discontinue
ed. there could be no complaint. The
situation would be very inconvenient
to outsiders, but no nation would have
a right to protest.
In the present case the allies have
prohibited trade between their own
people and the people of neutral
countries who are doing business with
their enemies, and it is difficult to
see on what grounds their right to
make this discrimination can be de-
MED. The only possible questions are.
first. whether the regulations are In
tended in good faith as war regula-
tions, and are not for the purpose OF
laying the foundation for a CONNER
cial advantage which will be of vast
Importance after the war is over: and,
good faith, are made in such q man
ner as to accomplish their object with
out infltcting needless injury on the
citizens Of neutral nations.
On the first point we have the rath-
er spirited declaration of the British
government, in the note just received
in Washington. the positive assurance
that the regulations are military and
not commercial; and the suggestion
that suspicious of contrary character
have no place in the relations Of
friendly nations. It is evident that
ought not to be made without evil
dence, and it is to be expected that
il Secretary Lansing has evidence of
bad faith on the part of the British
government Or any of its agents, he
will produce it.
On the second point, the manner in
which the restrictive regulations are
applied, the whole question is one Of
detail, and while the subject may re-
quire much correspondence and the
consideration Of a multitude of items,
no principle Is involved, and suitable
adjustments will be reached without
great difficulty.
On the main subject, however there
is basis for no expectation that the al
lies will yield any portion Of the right
they undoubtedly possess. to exercise
such supervision over the trade Of
their people during the continuance
Of the war as seems to them to be
necessary.
The right of neutrals to trade
wherever they can find custom ers is
not involved in this discussion. nor is
there any denial of that right.