BRITISH NOTE TO AMERICA

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2532, 5 August 1915, Page 5

BRITISH NOTE TO AMERICA

THE BLOCKADE OF GERMAN TRADE INSISTENCE ON FIRST PRINCIPLES ("Times" and Sydney "Siin" Services.) London, August 3. The Foreign Office publishes Sir Edward Grey's reply to tho American Note regarding tho restrictions on European stripping under the British Order-in-Council of March. Mr. W. H. Page, Amerioan Ambassador in London, on July 17, drew attention to tho detention of the steamer Neches, bound from Rotterdam to America, and insisted that American owners had the right to bring out goods from Holland, even though the goods may originally come from a belligerent country. Apparently this incident led to Sir Edward Grey's request to Mr. R. Lansing, the American Secretary of State, cabled on July 27, to delay publication of the British Note. The International Criminal.

The latter, dated July 23, stated that ill view of the shocking violation of the principles of civilised warfare, of which Germany had been guilty, it was incumbent on tho Allies to take every step to overcome him. Great Britain was unable to- accept the United States's contention that if a belligerent is so circumstanced that his commerce can pass tlirough adjacent neutral ports, 1 an opponent had no right to interfere. Britain wa-s unable to admit that a belligerent violates tlie fundamentals of international law by applying a blockade to cut off an enemy's commerce tin-ought neutral countries if such an apnlication is the only means of making the blockade effective. Tlie Note points out that Rotterdam is the Jioarest _ outlet to some of Germany's industrial districts. As a counterpoise to the freedom witli which one belligerent may seiid commerco across a neutral country without comnromising its neutrality the other belligerent may fairly claim to intercept it either before it reaches or after it Icayes the neutral State, provided he proves it is enemy commerce. A Recognised Principle. Britain was interfering witls no goods with which slio should not bo entitled to interfere by a,' blockade if Germany's geographical position wero such 'that commerce could pass through her own ports. If we are successful in distinguishing between tho commerce of neutral and enemy countries, there would not bo any substantial interference with the trade of neutral ports, exoept where these constituted ports of access and exit to enemy territory. Thero were many neutral ports which it would be a mere affectation to regard as offering facilities only for the commerce of the neutral country in which tliey were situated. It was a fundamental principle, universally recognised, that a belligerent by a blockade was entitled to effectively cut off tho enemy's commerce. Britain was unable therefore to accept the. United States's limitation.

Neither Reasonable Nor Juet. Sir Edward Grey, writing on July 30, referring to the Nechcs, says that 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 loss of ships, lives, and cargoes, nor how far theso acts have been protested against. Ho adds that while theso acts of Germany continue, it seems neither reasonable nor just that Britain should bo pressed .to abandon the rights claimed in tho Note of the 23rd, and to allow German goods to pass freely through waters effectively patrolled by British warships. The Government is prcpared to deal considerately jn tho matter of the Neches if'it is found that hardships are inflicted oil neutral citizens. He concluded by quotine tho legal remedies referred to in the Washington message cablcd on July 27. GERMAN NOTE TO THE UNITED STATES LUSITANIA INCIDENT "CLOSED'' (Rec. August 4, 8.40 p.m.)' . Milan, August 3. The Italian journal "II Secolo" announces that the forthcoming German Note ivill inform America that tho Lusitania incident has been regarded as definitely closed, and that Germany does not intend to reopen the question.