Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-07-14

the German Navy bottled up, the allies
principally Great Britain-wefe main
tanning an effective blockade Of Ger
man ports; and Germany, allegedly In
retaliation, turned to that most terrible
weapon Of modern warfare, the sub
marine.
Henceforth it was to be q war of
starvation.
In q sense, Germany had the advan-
tage. Great Britain had to depend on
obtaining supplies through her own
ports. Germany had an almost unob-
structed path across the Baltic by
which she could obtain supplies from
Norway. Sweden. Denmark and Hol-
land. These were neutral nations and
commerce with the Baltic nations
fouriShed.
Britain SEXES Vessels.
Great Britain promptly applied the
doctrine of ultimate destination" and
began hating American ships on the
high seas and taking them into British
ports, where the cargoes we're examined
and, If there was sound reason to be-
lieve that they contained war material
destined for Germany or Austria, con-
fiscated with due process of law. Pro-
tests began to pour into the State De-
partment over these seizures, and at
the same time over the sinking of
American ships by German subna-
rines.
Secretary Of State Bryan was in a
difficult position. At first he seems to
have forgotten all about the Springbok
precedent and protested without reser-
walton over the interference with
American commerce with neutral ports.
Through Ambassador Spring Rice,
Earl Grey promptly called Mr. Bryans
attention to the Springbok case. He
informed him that on that occasion
this government, whose nationals
were the sufferers, looked below the
surface at the underlying principle and
abstained from all protest"
He went further, pointing out that
the geographical position of Germany
her commerce, like that of England, to
go through her own ports.
THE exact methods of carrying a
blockade into effect" Earl Grey said.
have varied from time to time. The
need OF public notification, the requisite
standards of effectiveness, the right of
the individual ship to preliminary
warning. are subjects on which diff
ferent views have prevailed in different
countries and in which the practice Of
countries has been altered from time
to time.
THE one principle which has OBJ
tanned universal recognition is that by
means of blockade a belligerent is en-
titled to cut off by effective means the
sea-borne commerce Of the enemy"
Protests Are Continued.
The American State Department con-
cases, 1t was pointed out, the ships had
been halted and searched on the open
sea and taken into port only when 1t
was ascertained that they actually
contained war material" The British
were taking ships bound for neutral
countries into port and searching them
when they got there.
Great Britain replied that in Civil
War days it was a comparatively simple
matter for boarding oficer to de-
term1ne whether any part Of ships
cargo was likely to prove of aid or
comfort to the enemy, but that the
scope of war since had been broadened
so tremendously that experts were re-
quired to do this work. Instead of
delaying commerce by taking ships to
British ports for examination, It was
pointed out. Britain really was speeding
it up.
The official correspondence OF those
DAYS is quite involved and difficult to
interpret The points raised never
have been summarized. 1t Is explained
at the State Department. The con-
fusion which confrontS all students of
the problem is a potent reason for the
present demand for codifcation Of the
whole matter.
Never Admitted Validity.
So far as can be determined the
United States never admitted in the
World War the validity of the doctrine
of ultimate destination" which she
herself had originated tn.the Springbok
case. This doubtless was inconsistent
but consistencies went to pot every
where under the terrific stress and
strain of the World War The United
States continued to protest and Great
Britain to maintain her position in
diplomatic correspondence.
But affairs rapidly were approaching
condition where there was no further
need of argument.
Wholesale application by the British
of the doctrine Of ultimate destination
constituted a nuisance to American
shipping and possibly serious violation
of American rights. It was conducted,
however. strictly in accordance with
legal procedure and with scrupulous
regard for the lives and comfort Of
American citizens.
On the other hand. Germany was
sinking American ships bound for
allied ports without warning.
The lesser evil was lost sight Of In
the greater. The United States was
forced out of her neutrality into COM
mon cause with Great Britain and the
argument over the doctrine of ultimate
destination naturally came to an end.
Nv that time il was GERMANY and