THE BLOCKADE AND AMERICA

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2755, 26 April 1916, Page 5

THE BLOCKADE AND AMERICA

. . .... f SIR EDWARD GREY REPLIES TO-r- ---" .ANOTE . ; OUR RIGHT OF SEARCH By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright (Rec. April 25, 11.80 p.m.) Londonj -April 25. Sir Edward Grey (Secretary of State > for Foreign Affairs), replying' to the , American N6te on the subject of the British right of search at sea, quotes:: . Sir John Jellicoe's opinion that' "it" would be impossible to ' confine " the " search of vessels'to the actual -spotwhere .they are .encountered, .owing to the size of the .cargoes, the danger from ' submarines; and the subterfuges ' employed to conceal contraband. It is since necessary to tako them to port. • • The French Minister for Marine con-, curs with Sir John Jellicoe. . [ Sir Edward Grey adheres' to "Bri - tain's incontestable right to intercept A I contraband under, any circumstances." Regarding the .prize courts, he denies ,!. ,the: pf interaqtiQqa,!, procedure. "Each nation is a law unto itself. The old rules are unworkable, hence their abandonment:"-' ; 'He denies' that' American oversea trade, has been hampered, and quotes figures showing an, enormous increase for the war period.- "'Thous-. ' ands. of. tons.,of meat . products •liave ! -7 'been .consigned-to lightermen, .dockers, piano makers, and non-existent firms.' 1 - - THE AMERICAN NOTE. The Amerioan Note regardisg interfer. 1 enoe with trade reminds the British Gov< ernment that. it promised to minimis* inconveniences, and' regrets that it hai - not done so. : Instead, the interference have been increasily vexatious. Theri. are " three' complaint Firstly/the tab ' •ing of vessels to port for search, leading to powers that before the war were not contemplated. This practice, which re-',' suits in the cargoes of innocent vessel* being detained on mere suspicion, causei America much loss of trade. America ' docs not accept tho British presumption that where imports to an enemy's neutral : neighbour increase, the goods are intend. ,Ed for re-export to the enemy.' Thi« presumption is fundamentally unjust, , and offers overgreat opportunities for abuse. America denounces as illegal and : unjustifiablo the attempt to interfere with trade because a belligerent suspects that imports / are intended to! replace d goods , sold to the enemy. That is a matter with, which the neutral vendor, ii ... notrccncerned. Secondly, concerning, th< blcckade, American commercial interest) are hampered, by the new consignment tfl corporations in neutral countries,' America was formerly inclined to accept the so-called blockade under the Order-in-Council of March 11, but in the circumstances now- developed cannot longer permit it.to.remain unchallenged.,'.The T)V blockade is neither effective not- inipar- V ■ tial, because Scandinavia' continues to ' trade with Germany. Finally,. there ,is no better settled prihciple,in the'laws''of---nations than that forbidding the block-. ade of neutral ports, and the reasons for such a blockade cannot be regarded aj legal. Thirdly, as to Prize Courts, These are fettered by restrictions contra, vening international law. ( Moreover, Prize Courts cannot repair injur}' due tc ' delay and the expense of bringing a vessel to port, and .fear of interfering, America views with alarm the British' attempt to use illegal force "to bring neutral vessels to-port, and thereafter subjecting them to British international law. The Note concludes "America cannot complacently suffer further subordi- ' nation of its rights and interests on the ° plea • that the-exceptional, geographical position of British enemies requires or justifies illegal practicc. , America,insists' that. Britain conform to interna--tional 'law," and unhesitatingly'' assumes ' the task of championing neutral rights. She will impartially devote her energies i thereto."-- • . v : ■ -' -