The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1915. THE BRITISH BLOCKADE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 64, 16 March 1915, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1915. THE BRITISH BLOCKADE.

1,.; ~;.' Hi '.'.;'.'. For the cause t*ot loch* tmtatonoe, For'the wrong that needs resistance, ,For the future i» the distance, And the good that we cam ia.

The reply of the Allies to Germany's abortive attempt to destroy British commerce, and her piratical use of submarines to torpedo merchant ships without warning,, is contained in the notice of blockade that has just been gazetted by the Admiralty. Briefly, it amounts I to' this, that no merchant vessels are 'to be allowed to leave or to enter German ports; and any neutral ships attempting to trade with Germany will render themselves and - their cargoes liahle to detention and confiscation. Of course the distinction between contraband and other forms of merchandise is to be maintained, and goods not contraband and not requisitioned by Government are to be restored to their original owners. But all neutral countries are plainly notified that if they attempt to trade with Germany they risk the inconvenience and delay involved in detention and possible reference to Prize Courts, whose decisions will probably be deferred till the war is over. Onfthe whole, England's declaration of her intention to enforce a strict blockade against all German trade is as complete and thoroughgoing as could be desired, and, if carried into effect, it will certainly do a great deal to impose upon Germany a degree of economic and financial pressure that must ultimately bring the war to a close.

But it is impossible to shut our eyes to the effect produced by this stringent enforcement of the rights of blockade upon; xmr relations with neutral countries. Unfortunately, it is to the intere3t of the neutral nations to go on trading with Germany; that is, to maintain her ordinary business connections with the external world. And there is ample evidence to prove that the leading neutrals, and more especially the United States, are more anxious to secure their own commercial profit out of the" war than to express practical sympathy for either side or to facilitate the speedy close of the struggle. From the neutrals therefore we may expect, if not vehement opposition, at least strong * criticism of England's interpretation of her rights as defined by international law. The Americans have already, protested -vigorously against England's enforceihent of 'the right of search, a privilege always claimed by all belligerents strong enough to exercise it. At the first rumour that England meant to retaliate on Germany by stopping the whole of her sea-borne trade, the Americans began to complain I that England was exceeding her legal rights. They argue that it is impossible for the British fleet to establish a "close" blockade of German ports in tho technical sense because of minefields and submarines; and they appeal to tho strict letter of international law, which lays down the principle that unless a blockade is "effective"—that is, unless the blockading fleets are actually in a position to prevent the movements of ships in and out of harbours and along the enemy's coastline — ihe blockading »Power has no right to interfere with neutral trade.

It is. clearly impossible to define an "effective" blockade theoretically; but the practical test, of course, ia that the blockading Power shall be in a.position to sweep the enemy's trade from the eeas. As this ie, to all intents and purposes, what the British fleets have done, the American objection to our new. naval policy is simply a quibble. But the plain truth, of course, ie that when the Americans cay that England's blockade is "paper" no lese than Germany's, they are simply protesting against any attempt on England's part to interfere with their business arrangements, and to prevent them from making as much anoney as possible out of everybody else's necessities.- The closest"scrutiny of England's actions in "regard to'foreign commerce, whether enemy or neutral, since the war began, proves that she has always endeavoured honestly to carry out the , spirit, as Well as tho letter' of her obligations; and ' the neutral nations have absolutely no just cause.' of com-, plaint against her. As to Germany, the plea . put forward by her rulers that England's attempt to starve the German people" by cutting off their sea-borne .trade is barbarous and unjustifiable will not'bear a moment's criticism. The purpose of war ie to reduce the enemy to impotence as quickly as possible; and the whole object of a blockade is to bring about that result speedily hy cut-ting-off: tbe enemy's supplies. So far England .has followed the curious policy of allowing the Germans to secure some of'tiie things they need for their sustenance and support, while, cutting off the supply', of others. But this, aa Mr, Hilaire Belloc -has pointed out in one of his iUitoiniiting'-articles, ie .quite illogical 'to.'tedueie' your-enemy hy blockade, yoil'pre ! vent his anything- whatsoever." -of- wltich he stands -in need. The Romans pJ *Jcrusa\omrfor instance, or the -Germans in front of-JParia ih-,ls7t>,' did not. ftay,..'.\V.6'.iwlll ■prevent arms going tliro'tigii; but we-'Vill' alloy food/. 'ot,l\ will for sqldieri.; gping. iii,'" but w.S". win," aucfw': f doi", i £K; tlSßlAni,' If Vttej hid adepts! such $

they might ju*t »s well not haye had a blockade at "all" This is the purely military point of view, but obviously it is the only one that England can afford to' take; and it is quite sufficient to justify the course that the Allies nave now adopted in regard to the whole of Germany's sea-borne trade.