Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1916-05-04
BRITISH VIEWS OF SEA RIGHTS
THEN AND AT THIS TIME.
From Lhe New York AmerIcan.

IDt BilllSn NONcIUulCNi reply "
our Governments protest against tho
seizure Of American merchant ves-
sells bound to neutral ports is fiat
refusal to cease the practice.
The grounds upon which the Brit
ish note tries to justify the destruc-
tiOn of neutral commerce are:
l. That Germany violated Belgian
neutrality;
3 That German submarines have
sunk neutral ships;
g. That the rules in regards to
neutral commerce have been modi-
fed by England to suit modern con-
ditions of warfare;
A. That the United States during
the Civil War seized neutral British
ships bound to neutral ports.
The answers that MI Lansing
might truthfully make arc short and
plain.
Tho reply to the first two excuses
rs that what Germany may have done
to neutral territory or commerce has
nothing to DO with what the British
navy is doing to American commerce.
The answer to the third excuse is
that our notes to Germany have in
sisted. with firm emphasis, that the
United States will not recognize the
right of any nation to change during
the war the rules of international
maritime law recognized as in force
before the war.
The answer to the fourth excuse is
that il is not true.
The seizures of American ships
bound to neutral ports with cacrgoes
that were recognized by international
law as nOn-contraband BEFORE the
war arc absolutely Illegal seizures
and are acts Of unfriendliness and
c0ntomptuOus disregard OF American
rights which a self-resDectins Amer
lean Administration would have
stopped months ago.
We maintain that by the law of
nations any American or other neu-
trail ship has the legal right TO carry
provisions to Germany or 10 Austria
for the use of the civil population.
We assert that a ship OF any neu-
trail country has the legal right to
carry cargo OF any nature from its
own neutral country TO any other
neutral country.
We maintain chat IL is a violation
OF the express written declarations
or international law to seize. examine
or delay the mails OF a neutral coun-
try
We assert that by the express
written declarations OF international
law The following articles may not be
declared cOntraband OF war: Raw
cotton, wool. silk, jute, flax and all
raw materials OF the textile indus
tries. and All yarns OF the same; rub
bor. hides. bones and ivory, nitrates,
paints, varnishcs and dyes, fertlliz-
ers. agricultural mining, textile and
printing machinery, clocks, watches,
fashion and fancy goods, and all arr
ticlcs serving exclusively to aid the
sick and wounded
The articles catalogucd above are
expressly forbidden to be declared
contraband OF wal--and therefore
not liable to acizure- by ARTICLE IS
of the Declaration of London, and
this particular article was prepared
and insisted upon by the British
delegates, acting under the express
command OF the British Government.
1t makes no difference that the
Declaration of London was not for
mally ratified by all nations. This
Article 28 still remains the express
written British Governmental declar-
alton Of the law OF nations in regard
TO the non-contraband nature of all
the goods enumerated. And neither
he British Government nor any Cow
ernmcnt has any right at all TO att
tempt to impose a new doctrine upon
neutrals AFTER a WAR HAS BE-
GUN AND IS IN PROGRESS.
And yet no American can buy and
I.I. A
or wool from Australia. or ship meat
or provisions to neutral country
without obtaining @ permit from q
British Government agent located IN
our own countryl
AS soon as the Russo-Japanese
war was under way In 1904. British
merchant ships began TO carry coal.
rice. provisions, forage and horses to
Japan. Russia thereupOn declared
these goods contraband OF war and
ordered her cruisers to seize such
cargoes. Az once Lord Lansdowne,
In a note dated June / 1904, notified
the Russian Government that the
British Government regarded RUS
sia's prohibition OF neutral ships car
rylng provisions to Japan LAS A
STEP INCONSISTENT WITH THE
LAW AND PRACTICE OF Ma
TIONS."
I'm the same note the British Gov
ernment declared that they felt
hound to protest against the doctrine
that it Is for a belligerent to decide
what articles are to be dealt With as
contraband OF war, regardless OF the
WELL-ESrABLISHED RIGHTS OF
neutrals," and also declared that the
British Government would not con-
slider itself bound TO recognize the
decision Of any prize court which
violated those rights
In the same note Lord Lansdowno
strongly maintained the recognized
right Of neutral ships to carry pro-
visions to a country at war without
molestation. provided that the pro-
visions were consigned to private in
dividuals for civilian use and not
direct to the military or naval forces.
The Russian Government replied
with the very same argument the
British Government is now using TO
excuse its seizure of American CAR
goes, that goods so consigned TO
,.If.rffItto Io ,,aftsltf arfrnIlV h0