New-York tribune., 1916-07-10
A Modified Blockade.

"A NlCUlIiCG OiUChdOC.
Withdrawal of the various Orders in
Council given under the Declaration Of
London follows Of course upon the formal
abandonment Of that discrcditcd document
by Great Britain and the Allied powers.
The evident object is to maintain the press
ure on Germany while conforming "s
nearly as possible with the law Of nations;
but the expectation that more rigid
blockade would be established is not con-
firmed by the new Order in Council For
that reason the new order will doubtless be
received with disappointment by critics of
the British government at home. whose
complaint is that in the attempt to con-
ciiate neutral traders outrageous conces-
sions have in fact been made to the enemy.
What these critics have been demanding
is an actual blockade which would really
prevent commodities Of any kind from
reaching or leaving Germany" as the Or
der in Council of March II, 1915, was sup
posed to do. One of our local German
editors processes to regard this demand as
highly comical. and, with amiable SIM
plicitv. declares that Germany would wei
come real blockade. with British war
ships strung along the German coast in
asmuch as "the German submarines would
have days of great sport This childish
conception of a blockade is evidently sin
core. and will doubtless be accepted by the
ordinary German reader, whose under
standing of such processes is generally
foggy.
1t need hardly he pointed out that there
is no question of stringing vessels along
the coast as targets for German subma-
rines. 1t is not necessary that the ships
enforcing the blockade should even be
within sight of the coast, or that the
blockaders should be bound to the old sys-
tenn of inshore and offshore squadrons.
Mines and torpedo craft have, IN fact,
made close pressing by inshore sQuadrons
impossible to-day, and it is unlikely that
anything nearly resembling the blockade
of the Confederate coasts in our Civil War
would be attempted.
But it does not follow that a closer
blockade of German ports is therefore i'm
possible In reality. complete sealing up
was harder task in the old days of sail
ing ships. as we can see by the enormous
number of British ships captured by the
French in the last years Of the eighteenth
century. In the present war great sur
prise is generally expressed on the rare
occasions when the Germans succeed IN
capturing a British ship. 1t is forgotten
that in the last eight years Of the eigh-
teenth century the French averaged about
four captures every three days
The circumstance that troubles those
who are clamoring for more stringent
blockade is not that the navy has failed to
string vessels along the coast, in accord
ance with the naive idea Of the German
editor. or that the Orders in Council are
wholly in conceived. They maintain, how
ever. that the Orders in Council have been
ineffective in practice. One of their com
nlaints is that only or . per cent of the
ships sent into port by the navy are de-
tanned for adjudication by the Prize Court
They are not complaining Of the way IN
which the navy does ITS work. but OF the
way in which the work of the navy is un-
done by the government. They complain
moreover. of the agreements entered INTO
with neutral traders 2s means OF re
stricting German commerce and hold that
il would be infinitely better TO give the
navy and the Prize Court free hand. II
this were done. their belief is that an
effective blockade might be readily en-
forced.
The legal aspect OF the matter is un-
questionaby complicated, but the vague
notion that it is all a question Of whether
it were possible to have vessels strung
along the German coast" is quite erroneous.
The objections to the present system are
!, based on practical considerations. and
y principally on the consideration that goods
Y continue to reach and leave Germany.