New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-07-21
The British Blacklist.

American opinion is very intolerant of
blacklists and boycotts. 1t believes that
the use of such weapons is always mean
spirited and cowardly. Our laws and our
courts have put ban on the secondary
boycott-a form of prescription which
strikes over the head of an opponent at
innocent bystanders having nothing to do
with the cause of the quarrel. They have
also forbidden the use of the written or
published blacklist intended to intimidate
third parties from dealing with one or
other Of two groups engaged in economic
war.
The natural instincts Of our people have
therefore been outraged by the publica-
ton of the British governments list Of
American citizens or of alien citizens and
corporations domiciled here with whom
British subjects are forbidden to trade.
This proclamation is fresh challenge to
our government to resent the unusual and
extra-legal measures which Great Britain
has taken to control and stifle neutral
commerce. It is most impolitic challenge.
The British government has been enforcing
a secret boycott against most of these in
dividuals and firms. So long as it was
secret our government could not take
notice of it. London should have left well
enough alone.
At best, the effect of boycott on trade
in which neutrals supposed to be favor
ably disposed to Germany are engaged
can be little more than pin prick. Yet
for the trivial satisfaction of placarding
these few individuals and firms Great
Britain risks mourning the ill-will of the
American public and invites reprisals-ip-
furious alike to US and to her-which
would only move the Teutonic allies to
loud outlaws. The game is never worth
the candle in boycotting and blacklisting
enterprises. Our domestic boycotters
learned that lesson long ago. Great
Britain will learn it to her sorrow if she
persists in trying to put few individuals
and firms in this country out Of business
at the cost of commercial hostilities with
the United States.
We do not deny the right Of the British
government to say that its subjects shall
not deal with the persons on the official
blacklist. That result was, in fact, al
ready practically attained before the
blacklist was published. The prescribed
individuals and firms have now no trade
worth speaking about with Great Britain's
enemies.
But if the direct boycott is to be con-
verted into a secondary boycott, the United
States will have to take some action in
self-defence. If American vessels were
to be Disseminated against because they
carried to neutral countries goods offered
by boycotted individuals or firms, our gov
eminent would be forced to interfere. We
could not tolerate such a limitation put
upon our shipping under no other warrant
than that of British municipal legislation
of a proclamation which, according to
the British governments own explanation,
is intended to be purely domestic in its
effect.
If blacklisted American citizen, for
instance, wants to send merchandise in an
American vessel TO South America, the
British government has no right under any
law to try to discipline, then or later, the
shipmaster who accepts such legitimate
cargo.
The United States cannot stand for the
secondary boycott on the high seas any
more than it can stand for the secondary
boycott at home. The most sensible thing
Mr. Asquith's government could do under
the circumstances would be to withdraw
its foolish and futile blacklist.