New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-06
OUR DIPLOMATIC FAILURE
Troubles Due Mainly to the Hail.,
Actions of the Adminissrat;o.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Have not most Of our troubl..
arising out Of the present war =,
suited from errors or failures ~ g..
present Administration in the eo,Au-.
OF our foreign relations! Nav NJ.
England have been emboldened IA
from the SOP OF presumption TO eons.-
cation and other extremes By the -.
markable intimation in our not. 10 ~.
that requirement Of "the old form =.
close blockade" might possibly be Ala.
pensed with?
A blockade which is not a elo..
blockade is a paper" blockade. In Is,,
we went 10 war with England bee.,,.
of such blocksdes. How this intir..
ton and other suggestions were us.,
by the English appears from report. /,
our newspapers Of editorial article, !,
the British press as follows:
"The Daily Telegraph" says: Tai,
suggestion appears 70 bear the sk,.
acter Of an invitation 20 the Ala
governments TO declare a formal loss
distance blockade, involving on La
trails, of course, all the penalties a
attempting 10 break through. Jurr.
we apprehend, will contend that e.
proposal carries with It far non
serious infraction Of international In
than the present measures Of he
Allies"
"The Daily Mail" emphasizes hs
fact that the note makes an important
concession, and says I'VE may be pro-
fcundly grateful 10 the American IA
ton" When belligerent proposed 10
seize on the high seas provisions des-
tined for his enemy our State Depart.
ment characterized il as a return 10
bsrbaric habits of war. Approval o.
Mr.. Kasson's letter: Moore, I, .. SD
A great English authority on intsua.
: tional law said that for a neutral 10
submit 10" illegal seizures Of pro.
visions shipped by her 70 belliger.nt
is TO become an accompliee Of The
wrongdoer. and that the duty Of send.
ing provisions must be performed evsa
at a sacrifice. Our State Department
held in a case similar 70 the present
one that sending provisions TO q bel.
ligerent who stopped our sending pro.
visions to his enemy was an act Fl
partially Immortality which might
lead to war with the latter Moore. T.
o. 677.) And is there not statemens
in our note TO England 70 the effect
that for this nation TO admit the riekt
of England to do what she is now doing
would be TO assume an attitude Of IN
neutrality toward Germany which
would be obviously inconsistent with
the solemn obligations Of this govern.
ment?
A state is bound TO prevent viola
tions Of its rights Of neutrality. Trad.
ing in non-contrahand is the most i'm.
portant Of these rights. And for what
have we put ourselves in the present
rredicament7 A stroke Of the pen
notice that interference with our CON-
merce would cause an embargo-vcaA
have constrained England 70 desist A
/ great EUSlicu duNuOiihg ooAN N"os 'es
embargo of 1907 in retaliation for
British orders in council less vicious
than the present orders was justified
(Phillimore. 3, p. 3l3). The alleged u
legality of prohibiting exports 81
arms could not we'll be urged against
Justification of an embargo, Tor acts et
reprisal are generally illegal in nature,
though permissible in consequence Of
illegal acts of the nation affected. Our
interference with England's commerce
would be justified unless her interfer-
ence with our commerce were taken "
legal.
Had we taken a firm stand for our
rights, would there have been any Oh
jectionable submarine warfare ana
consequent danger Of our becoming 10
yolved in the war? Germsny's subra'
rine measures were reprlsal for pre-
vious illegal measures TO stave Ger
many, which became effective IN ees'
sequence of our failure to enforce our
rights Of neutrality.
CHARLES S. SIMPSON
Norwalk, Conn, Oct. 30, 1916.