Evening star., 1939-12-17
Principle Franklin Set Forth
Is i. S.>British Issue Again
America Holds Non.C Contraband Private Property
Is Immune From Capture, England
Believes in Best Fleet
By Blair BoHes.

provisions. The course OF the controversy
Is topically interesting because those are
substantially the provisions of the Order
in Council Of November %, 1882
The purpose of the March II procla-
nation, which had other points, was the
institution of a thorough blockade OF
Germany in retaliation for the subma-
rine blockade of the British Isles de-
clared by the Germans in February. The
Americans of the day were inclined to
sympathize with the British purpose and
to look with horror on the conduct Of a
submarine blockade, with it's corollary of
unrestricted and seemingly inhumane at.
tacks from undersea on merchant ships.
However, it did not sit we'll with Secre.
tary Bryan, who, for all his back country
unfamiliarity with the delicate problems
of a country at war, looked at the whole
situation from the American point OF
view and without sympathy for the Brit
ish plight. The order interfered with
American shipping and it contravened
international law as our State Depart
ment read it,
Lansing Carried on After Bryan.
The State Department, guided by
Bryan, made its views plain in a note
to the British government March 30,
1915. Our Government contended that
American ships could transport goods to
and from neutral ports without being
subject to blockade. 1t was Mr. Bryan's
point that the British in blockading neu-
tral points were requiring us to be un-
neutral. The British replied on July %
that blockade of the enemy was of no
value if the enemy could receive goods
from a neighboring neutral whose ports
were open.
Mr.. Bryan left the State Department
in June, 1915, but Robert Lansing
carried on. On October 81, 1915, Mr..
Lansing sent new and longer note
to the British government, complaining
because neither the British nor the
French were discriminating nicely or
trying to discriminate between neutral
goods and enemy goods leaving neutral
port. Mr.. Lansing, who was regarded as
pro-British, here obscured the main
issue, which was that in the traditional
American view blockades were not appli-
cable against neutral shores, such as
the Netherlands or the Scandinavian
countries.
On April "a, 1916, the British govern
ment replied once more. Its note was
scarcely an answer to the American
objections, but it made an honest repre-
entation-unlike the Times history-of
the motives behind the invocation of this
illegal (as we saw it, authority. 1t read ::
THE measures taken by the allies are
aimed at preventing commodities of any
kind from reaching or leaving Germany
and not merely at preventing ships from
reaching or leaving German shores"
Retaliation Theory Set Forth.
Furthermore the note fatty stated that
the British and French governments dc
not feel that the ordinary rules Of block
ade should be held applicable in Thu
instance. The notes authors called at
tention that the Order in Council o1
March II and the French proclamation
of March 13 were retaliatory, and argued
that retaliation was fundamental right
under international law. Secretary of
State Lansing, who received this reply
by April 1916, was welded to the idea
that the United States would get into
the war on the British side He was out
ragged personally by the German SUBJ
marine warfare against which the Brit
ish retaliation was directed.
Continued legaistic argument against
such pragmatic statements would have
been absurd. The Americans were faced
with the harsh necessity phrased in some
circles thus: Put up or shut up" Pro-
tests would have to give way to demands
or to nothing.
Rather than demand, the State De.
partment said no more. There was dip
lomatic correspondence between the two
countries over other phases of blockade
but the British were adamant in theil
original view. On February %, 1917, q
new Order in Council carried the theor,
of March II to new distances. This
order proclaimed the British official as
sumption that vessels encountered at sea
to or from neutral ports affording acces,
to the enemy were carrying goods with
enemy destination or origin If they haG
not called at a British or allied port
These vessels could be brought into Brit.
ish port for examination or for prize
court action.
To this sweeping denial of all the
standards of international law for which
the United States stood, the United
States made no protest. BY February
relations with Germany had been sew.
cred. We were in increasing sympathy
with the English view. We were to go tc
war in April. The British continued
until the wars end to enforce the Ordel
in Council of February o. The Amert.
can Navy itself never seized a neutra
ship during the American participation
in the war. But the Navy participated
in the blockade and did not complain
because it was cooperating with a gov.
ernment acting illegally, as we saw it.
No End to Row in Sight.
The recurrence Of this dispute 81
long after it first brought friction be-
tween the English and the American.
probably indicates that it is contro.
versy which will last as long as time, OF
at least as long as there are wars II
which England participates. The British
always, except in the declaration of Pari.
in 1856, have refused to make them.
selves parties to treaties or convention.
mr. nactS uhich limit tbeir chiof roEoocx