New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-02-09
THE BRITISH BLOCKADE
In Principle 1t Is Sustained by
MANY Authorities and Precedents.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: We have heard of late violent pro-
tests from certain Washington statesmen
against the sea law rs applied by the British
navy, under which American goods are
seized on neutral vessels bound for neutral
ports in countries still accessible TO German
goods The Wilson Administration took note
of the coming storm in that quarter some
months ego, and politely informed the Brit
ish government that 1t did not recognize the
Orders in Council to have established legal
blockade OF Germany or right TO make such
seizure. Since, with minor differences, the
international law recognized By the American
and British prize courts has been identical
il may be worth while to note the opinion
OF the two leading masters of that law III
England, as deliberately expressed By them
prior to the outbreak of the present conflict
Professor Holland in his Letters or War
and Neutrality" Second edition., page l@T,
wrote in 1904: at would be disastrous if ship
owners and insurers were TO assume that
neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral port
is necessarily safe from capture"
He added that this was true, though Lord
Stowell the greatest authority on British
prize law, might be quoted to the contrary
effect in cases now more than a century old
But, Professor Holland continued:
The United States cases decided IL the
eos in which certain ships we're held
to be engaged in carrying contraband, al
though their destination was to a neutral
port, were subsequently approved by Great
Britain. This principle was adopted by Italy
in the case Of the Doelvijk, in 1896, AMI was
supported by Great Britain in the correspond
ence upon this subject which took place with
Germany in 1900. It was ihdorsed otter pro
longed discussion by the Institut de Droit
Internationale in 1896"
Next to Professor Holland, the most emil
nent English authority is Professor Open
helm, of Cambridge. In mis- monumental work
on international law Vol IT, Sec. 400. ct seq
he considers the right of belligerent to CON
tiscs.e neutral goods on neutral ship with
an immediate destination for neutral port,
but with an ultimate destination for an enemy
country, and says
The American prize courts answered the
question in the affirmative By applying to the
carriage of contraband the principle OF dolus
non purgatur clrcutu and the so-cailed doe
trne Of continuous voyage
This doctrine Professor Oppenhelm thinks
"rea enable, just and adequate provided the
intention 10 carry cargo crcultously 10 the
enemy port is proved. and also Il mere sus-
picion is not held proof OF that intention"
As our own Civil War decisions had lost
nothing OF their authority at home, 1t thus
appears that so far as the right TO seize
neutral cargoes on ships for crcuitous or in
direct carriage of contraband goods 10 an
enemy country was concerned the United
States and British authorities were agreed
when the Great War opened in 1914. Il
further appears from these English authori-
ties that their views were in accord with a
large body OF Continental practice and au-
thority.
Our own government in the Civil War had
likewise applied the continuous voyage doc
trine to blockade. and was here also sustained
in doing so by the decisions of the Supreme
Court, but in this respect later opinion abroad
has been less favorably inclined to the Amer
lean view than in the matter OF contraband.
At the London Naval Conference in 1909
which framed the often quoted Declaration
OF London, the doctrine of continuous trans
port "a applicable 10 contraband Of all kinds
was urged by all the present great Allied
powers and by the United States The con-
ference adopted il. however. only as 10 abso-
lutte contraband. As the declaration, however.
was not ratified before the present war by all
the beligerents. it has not the force Of law.
and each belligerent is free to modify its
rules provided they do not violate we'll recog-
uizeG rules of international law In so doing.
Great Britain has exercised this privilege BY
enlarging the list OF absolute contraband and
50 orough, such cargoes as cotton and. per
haps. meats within the rule of contnuou.
transport. This is doubtless a hardship TO
Jour shippers, but it may we'll be. doubted