America and the Blockade.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15246, 7 April 1915, Page 6

America and the Blockade.

The American Note to Great Britain on the subject of tie British blockade, is couched in friendly terms. Thvj Amertcan Government notes with gratification that wide discretion has been given to the Prize Courts, and ] hopes that tho powers assumed by BriI lain in restriction of neutrals' trade j will be modified by orders to executive I ofticers-. There remains, however, at lea&t on« important question at U»uo between the two countric-s. America contends that the Brir_.h blockade is practically an assertion of beliigc-rsnt rights over neutral commerce, and holds thiiL this is a denial of neutrals* sovereign rights. America claim- the right to '-transport innocent shipments -• to and from the United States •' through neutral countries to belli'•'gerent territory,"' but apparently Britain does not. admit this right. Tim Allie-i' blockade is absolute; contraband and uon-contrabnnd are no longer terms of account. Evoryihing going to Germany and coming from Germany is Ito bo stopped. Mr Asquith 6een* fi to hate mad. this clear' in his statement on -March 3rd. \ There was no form of economic pressure to which the Allies did not coiisiderthemsclves entitled to resort, and if neutrals suffered inconvenience the Allies regretted it: bnt neutrals should remember that this phase of the war was not initiated by us. Wo had not proposed to assassinate their- _.umen. or destroy their ships. The British an"! French Governments would hold themselves free.to obtain and tako into port ships carrying, goods of presumed en.?my destination or ownership or origin, bnfc it was,not. intended to confiscate such vcspels or their cargoes unless they, for other reasons, would bo liable to confiscation. This seems to cover the •-innocent"' shipments going through neutral ports mentioned in the American Note. Tlie value to Germany of American trade through neutral ports was 1 pointed out by Sir Edward Grey in his recent Noto to the United States. In Septetnber and October, 1913, for instance, the exports of Anieri- ■ can lard, bacon, canned beef and pickled pork.', to Trenmark. were nil, '. whoreris in tho corresponding months of last . year they * w_re 22,G52,3981__ 1,022,1f>01b, l.)l,_001_, and 812..8721b respectively. To give way on this point ' would he to weaken the blockade very materially. Britain "pays scrupulous regard to the rights of neutrals after ships arc (Stopped. Unlike Germany, sh- doe« not sink ships at eight or after capture, -no risk of life is involved, and, there is.no IOS 9 of goods unless goods are liable to be confiscated. according '• to international law. Ships ' and cargoes ato taken to port and dealt 1 with by the Prize Court, which giTes every consideration to neutrals' rights. The American. Note hopes that if it is proved that- the operation- of Britain's enemy are tainted'by unlawful acts, Britain will not' allow her own actions to bo similarly tainted. But this is surely bogging the question. Britain's blockade is an answer to a system of piracy and murder, which does not _if- - fereniiate between neutral and British ships and goods. By her action Ger- , many puts herself beyond the pale of ordinary international procedure. "It ..' .-" is impossible/" says Sir Edward Grey, , " for oneft belligerent to depart from ■• " ruies and prccecLan.s and for the '•'other to remain bound by thorn."' If the other did remain so bound a great ' military advantage would lie with tho wrong-doer. No American newspaper, reported tho "Washington correspondent of "Tho Times,'' in February, had had anything good to 6ay of the German "blockade." It is truo that sinco then th*} British retaliation lias been criticised by tho American Press, but probably by this time some at least of those who objected to it have como to realise that it is tho only possibl/j reply to an infamous new departure in naval j>--_