proposal. Great Britain rejected it and, indeed, instead of accepting, proceeded to more radical measures than before. On March 1, stating its action to be a retaliation against the submarine war and other alleged breaches of international law by the Germans, England instituted a "blockade" of Germany. The authorities at London announced that all vessels carrying cargoes to or from Germany, whether direct or via neutral ports, would be subject to seizure. This was the culmination of the British lawlessness. The culmination of the German lawlessness was the Lusitania horror.

The British "blockade" terminated our cotton trade with Germany, virtually the only trade that had moved. Whatever even of cotton thereafter found its way to Germany was involved in a smuggling operation. The third largest buyer from America became as distant from us as another world, barring some dangerous, indirect trade. Moreover, all our shipments to European neutrals adjacent to Germany now became tainted with suspicion and detention. Scores of cotton cargoes bound for neutrals have been held up in British ports.

For the first time American importers of German goods saw their supplies endangered; until March 1, the flow of commerce from Germany had been unhindered. Our Federal Government faced a loss of $20,000,000 per year in customs revenues levied on German goods.

The most striking circumstances in this extraordinary situation is the fact that Great Britain has

at no time maintained a genuine blockade. British warships, fearing submarines, dare not undertake a close blockade of German ports. The Admiralty merely intercepts all traffic passing by Scotland or through the English Channel. Thus the blockade does not bear equally on all neutrals, for Scandinavian countries ship undisturbed to German Baltic ports, from which American products are barred.

This whole process of gradually damming the currents of trade to and from one of the members of the comity of nations has been attended with huge financial loss to the neutrals. More important than this, these neutrals, because the British operations have been contrary to the accepted interpretations of international law, have been put in a position where they ask themselves seriously whether, without violating their neutrality, they may lawfully continue to trade with one belligerent which unlawfully prevents them from trading with another. Above all, they question the possibility of silent acquiescence in the policy of both belligerents in abandoning decent restraints in their treatment of the lives and property of neutrals.

The time has arrived to revive the restraints and reassert international law and morals.

The lifting of the British "blockade" will not suffice, for we neutrals should then find many of the products of peaceful industry each burdened with an individual blockade. That is, these products would be found included in the British contraband lists, with all that that means in the hindrance of

trade between neutrals as well as between a neutral and a belligerent. If the "blockade" were lifted and the October 29 Order in Council and the British contraband lists kept in force, the relief to neutrals would be small.

What we need is a code of law and morals so simple in its terms that the self-interest of neither belligerent can evolve a quibbling interpretation of it different from that which neutrals hold. In this code must be determined what may be contraband and what may not; and it must define the entire method of procedure against merchant ships at sea.

There is no time now, in the midst of the war, for neutral nations to meet and devise such a code. The best we can do is to point to one already in existence: the Declaration of London. Formed by the best legal talent of all nations, it is fair and it is clear.

Along with the removal of England's illegal practices against the goods of neutrals must go the removal of Germany's illegal practices against their goods and lives. Germany must restrict her swollen contraband list and likewise return to the Declaration of London. She must not use submarines against unresisting merchant vessels except to stop and search them in the approved legal way. Nor may English merchant vessels under any conditions be sunk until the safety of crew and passengers has been provided for.

Floating mine fields must be removed by those who laid them.

The following chapters are a review of the successive measures that led up to the present situation, and the effect of those measures upon leading articles of our foreign trade and upon our neutrality. It will be shown that it is in America's power, as it is her duty, to restore international law on behalf of the neutral world.

CHAPTER II

THE BRITISH AUGUST ORDER IN COUNCIL AND ITS EFFECT ON THE EXPORT OF FOODSTUFFS

The various measures taken to restrict the trade of neutrals are best reviewed in connection with a consideration of their effect upon the trade in foodstuffs, for it was foodstuffs against which most of these measures were aimed.

For a belligerent to interfere with food moving over the sea to the civilian population of the enemy is contrary to our conceptions of international law— and contrary to the conception formerly insisted upon by Great Britain-unless such interference is accomplished by means of an effective blockade.

Violation of the rights of trade means violation of the rights of both parties trading. In this particular case, one party was Germany and one party was the United States. We are less directly interested in the infringement of the right of German civilians to receive food than in the infringement of our right to ship it. Thomas Jefferson even tells us that to send food to one combatant and forego our right to send food to the other is a clear breach of neutrality.*

*For his letter to Pinckney, see Appendix, p. 318.