AMERICA AND BRITAIN.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXV, Issue 8209, 5 August 1915, Page 5

AMERICA AND BRITAIN.

reply to representations. Oerman commerce through neutral. countries. LONDON, August 3. The Foreign Office publishes Sir Edward Grey's reply to America. Br Page, the American Ambassador, on July 17 drew attention to the detention ofi'the steamer Neches, bound from Rotterdam to America, und in- ; sifted that American owners hj<d 'the ' right to bring goods from Holland, ■even' though"the goods may originally .come fromi a belligerent country. Apparently this, incident- led to Sir IrEdward- Grey.'s request to Mr Luring to-delay -the-publication o£ the iiritißb. 'Note. ■■ „ .-;• .■;•-; ■ • ■ •

• ; : The latter, dated July 23, stated that m view of the shocking violation-of th« ' principles of civilised warfare of which Germany has been guilty it was incumbent on the Allies to take every step to overcome it. Britain was unable to accept-the'United States' contention that, if a belligerent is so circumstanced his commerce can pase through adjacent neutral ports, an opponent has no right to interfere. • Britain was. unable to admit that a 1 belligerent violates the fundamental principles of international law by applying' a blockade to cut off the enemy's commerco through neutral countries, if such application were th© only means . of making the blockade effective. ;

The Note points out that Rotterdam is the nearest outlet for some of Germany's industrial districts, and states that as a counterpoise to the freedom with which one belligerent may send 1 commerce across a neutral country without compromising its neutrality^ another belligerent mny fairly claim the right to intercept it, either before reaching or after leaving the neutral State, provided he proves it is enemy commerce. - '

Britain was interfering with no goods which should not be entitled to be interfered with by blockade, if Germanj''s geographical position was sucSt that her commerce passed through her own ports. If we were successful it) ~ distinguishing between the commerce of neutral and enemy countries there would not be a substantial liftoff erenoer* ' with the trade of neutral porter, except j where they constituted ports cf access. \o and-exit from enemy territory. * - There were many neutral ports" .which, it would be a more affectation .to regard?"' ■ as offering.facilities only for'the commerce of tho neutral country in whicl* " they were situated.

It was a fundamental principle, universally recognised, that a bellijwtont, by blockade,' was entitled to effectively attack the enemy's commerce. Britain was unable, therefore, to accept the United States' limitation.

Sir Edward Grey, writing on July 30, referring to the Neches incident, iiays.:— '■<■;. , ■ ;

The Imperial' Government is not ;aware, except from the published correspondence, between the United States and Germany, to what extent reparation.- is claimed from Germany by neutrals for the loss of ships, lives, arid cargoes, nor how far these acts have been protested against. He adds: " Whilo these acts by Germany continue it seems neither reasonable nor just that Britain should be pressed to abandon rights claimed in the Note of July 23, and nllow German goods to pass freely through waters which were effectively patrolled by British warships. "The Government is prepared to deal considerately in the Neches case if it is found thnt hardships hare been inflicted, on neutral citizens."