Finally, the British note averred that Germany had violated international law by bombarding British coast towns, laying mines, mistreating Belgians and Frenchmen and torpedoing British merchant vessels. Therefore Britain could not be expected to remain bound by old laws. Neutrals would be expected to stand aside while England declared food contraband, or adopted such other measures of retaliation as should be thought fitting.

For

It is impossible to pass over this note without commenting upon certain of its features. example, Sir Edward Grey informed us that England did not know of the modification of the German Decree when the Wilhelmina was seized on February 9. That modification passed the Bundesrat on February 6. The news was cabled to the United States via London. At the head of this despatch to American papers, published February 8, we read, "Berlin, February 6; via London, February 7." This means that on February 7 this important news passed through the hands of the British censor. That it was not known to the Foreign Office on February 9 was, to say the least, extraordinary.

The fortifications by which Hamburg is "protected" are at the mouth of the Elbe, over seventyfive miles from the port. Hamburg is fortified about to the same extent as Albany is fortified by the protections about New York City, and on such a theory, Peekskill, Tarrytown and Yonkers are military establishments far more perilous.

The British statement that it "might be obliged" to consider interfering with food moving to Germany needs no comment.

It is necessary to say a word about Britain's contention that it should have a free hand because Germany was overstepping international morality in its manner of making war on England. That of course is no excuse for England taking action against Germany which violates the rights of neutrals. When Germany's novel conception of international law infringes upon our rights, we protest and take care of ourselves. We do not invite or allow England to defend us against Germany's aggressions any more than we allow Germany to defend us against England's aggressions. Once admit this altruistic policy of reprisals by belligerents and all our neutral rights vanish.

It was evident, however, from the developments in the Wilhelmina case, that no criticisms were likely to change the course of events or to alter the determined policy of His Majesty's Government.

On February 27, the writ was issued putting the Wilhelmina's cargo into the prize court. The attorneys for the cargo, who were in London, hoped for a speedy trial. They expected that the vessel would get to Hamburg, for the "blockade" of Germany was not announced until March 1, three weeks after the Wilhelmina was detained. On March 19, and again on March 23, the American attorneys in New York and London protested against the delay in trying the case in the prize court.

On March 26 the British Solicitor of the Treasury suggested to the attorney of the vessel that in view of the loss of $1,000 per day as a result of the detention, the cargo should be unloaded, and that such part of the merchandise as was deteriorating should be sold through the prize court. The suggestion was refused on the ground that the parties who had chartered the vessel preferred to keep the cargo aboard, ready to sail for Hamburg when the prize court declared it free.

The Wilhelmina case was finally set for March 31. It was evident, however, that the English ministry did not want the case to come before the prize court; and the reason for their attitude becomes clear after a little reflection. As shown in the previous chapter, Great Britain as a neutral has constantly denied that foodstuffs destined for civilians in a belligerent country are seizable as contraband. Any action of a prize court condemning the cargo of the Wilhelmina would have been an absolute reversal of this attitude by her judiciary and would have promised a very possible future embarrassment. The vessel could not be held on any charge of attempted blockade-running, for it had sailed and had been detained before the blockade was declared. Yet it was not safe to let America get a food ship through to Germany. More might follow if such a precedent were established.

The problem was solved by the familiar British method of a new Order in Council, which, if it cannot be called a substitute for international law, served

at least to give a legal formula to what was done. This Order was passed on March 23, but was not divulged until the trial, on March 31. Then, to the surprise of the American attorneys, the crown lawyers produced an Order in Council which authorized the crown to requisition any neutral ship and cargo which for any reason whatever had been brought before the prize court. The new Order read:

"Where it is made to appear to the judge, on the application of the proper officers of the court, that it is desired to requisition on behalf of His Majesty a ship in respect of which no final decree of condemnation has been made, he shall order that the ship shall be appraised, and that, upon an undertaking being given in accordance with rule 5 of this Order, the ship shall be released and delivered to the crown."

The counsel for the Wilhelmina's cargo were taken aback, and asked for a continuation of the case until April 13, so that they could revise their argument to meet the new law that was to apply. They found there was no argument. The power of Britain, under her self-made international law, to requisition the cargo of the Wilhelmina, made a trial of that cargo's right to proceed to Germany practically out of the question.

The American shippers were therefore compelled to submit to the purchase of the goods by the British government. The offer was made by Great Britain in a note to Ambassador Page, published April 13, to be transmitted to the W. T. Green Company.

The British note stated that the sailing of the Wilhelmina was designed as a test case to see whether American food could be sent to Germany. Since the Blockade Order, however, the case was academic. That Order would prevent any more food being sent, no matter how the case of the Wilhelmina might be decided. Hence there was no longer any object in continuing the proceedings. The British Government therefore offered to buy the cargo at Hamburg prices, the compensation to be determined by a referee appointed by Sir Edward Grey and Ambassador Page. As to the vessel itself, Great Britain offered to compensate for loss due to the detention so far as that was caused by the action of the British authorities; but it had been contended by London from the first that the ship might have discharged cargo and proceeded immediately after February 9.

Lord Mersey was appointed referee. Early in May, London despatches reported that he had decreed $430,000 as a settlement for the Wilhelmina case. The London Daily Mail quoted the Wilhelmina owners as "highly pleased with the handsome and generous settlement made by the government for the steamship's cargo." The W. T. Green Commission Company, through their lawyers, deny any such satisfaction. The profit on that one $200,000 cargo was large, but in their attempt to re-establish their German business they had failed. Had they succeeded, they would have made a large profit not on one, but on a hundred cargoes.