illustrating an extensive application of the law of blockade by the United States itself. It was insisted that England had the right to extend the law of blockade to fit the peculiar situation of Germany, surrounded and served as it was by neutral ports. The sole obligation of Britain in the matter was said to be the obligation not to molest bona fide neutral trade. The reason why the British action was not directly supported by written authority was, it was declared, because it was the business of writers on international law to formulate existing rules and not suggest adaptations to meet altered circumstances.

The note insisted that the British adaptations of old rules were in accordance with the general principles of law and that "unnecessary injury to neutrals" was being avoided. It was asserted that our March 30 note exaggerated the degree of British interference with our trade with neutrals. It was denied that there are "certain now clearly determined rights" of belligerents which belligerents may not overstep. These rights were stated to have been variously exercised in the past. The method of exercising the right of blockade, the note went on, might vary with the circumstances of the case. The right itself was by effective means to shut off the commerce of an enemy. So with the principle of contraband and its applications, which must change to meet conditions.

*In this July 23 note, England did not again (as in its February 10 note) cite the Matamoros cases, the real Civil War parallels to the British blockade situation. As we shall see, these cases are directly opposed to the British contention.

As for the reminder in the March 30 note that according to the Declaration of Paris "free ships make free goods," the British reply said that England was interfering with goods because of German destination or origin, not because of German ownership (which according to the Declaration of Paris was insufficient to justify seizure).

His Majesty's Government then expressed its satisfaction that the measures being enforced had had no detrimental effect on the commerce of the United States.

"Figures of recent months show that the increased opportunities afforded by the war for American commerce have more than compensated for the loss of the German and Austrian markets."

The note was a clear rejection of all our demands. A few of its points call for comment. No shocking methods of German warfare are a reason for a belligerent abridging the clear trade rights of neutrals. As for our use of the principle of continuous voyage in the Bermuda cases, we did not invent the principle but took it over from British practice. Our Supreme Court in the Matamoros cases specifically halted us from such a distortion of the principle as Britain now makes: namely, the blockading of a neutral port to prevent even non-contraband from moving overland to the enemy.

The British plea of necessity and altered circumstances sounds like the German justification of the terrors of their submarine warfare, or of their march through Belgium. The reference to the flourishing

condition of our export trade did not impress us. The total figures of our exports were indeed large, but the presence of a large volume of mushroom trade like war orders did not compensate for the enormous loss sustained by such great interests as cotton. Above all, large exports to the Allies did not soothe our feeling that the principle of neutrality was being violated when we supplied the Allies and yet allowed them unlawfully to prevent us from trading with the Central Empires.

CHAPTER VI

SOME EFFECTS AND ASPECTS OF THE BLOCKADE

Since the blockade was instituted, there has been a continuous series of seizures, detentions, confiscations or purchases. To further "legalize" its actions the British Government adopted on March 23 a new development in "international" law-as usual an Order in Council-already described in connection with the Wilhelmina case. This Order provided that the cargo of any neutral ship in a British port, which had not yet been condemned, might be requisitioned. Any vessel bound from the United States to any port in Europe might be brought into a British harbor in accordance with the terms of the March 11 or October 29 Orders in Council. If Great Britain could find no ground for condemning a cargo from the United States to a neutral country, it could now purchase that cargo and prevent it from reaching its destination.

After March 30 all seizures by the British Admiralty of neutral vessels sailing from America for neutral ports were in defiance of the attitude of our government, excepting as the seizures were made for the purpose of discovering absolute contraband for Germany whose presence might be justly suspected.

A few instances will illustrate the policy of deten

tion. On March 30 the Danish steamer Louisiana left New York for Copenhagen. On April 16 she was taken to Kirkwall. On April 26 she was ordered to proceed to Hull, where the foodstuffs in her cargo were to be passed on by a prize court. On March 24 the Lapland sailed for Copenhagen. On April 9 she was seized and taken to Kirkwall; on April 14 she was transferred to Barrow, where her provisions were unloaded and thrown into court.

It is recalled that five ships of the American Gans Steamship Company were detained in November, and after many adventures succeeded finally in getting their case set for June 7. By the middle of May twelve other steamers, with provisions for Scandinavia to the value of $11,000,000, lay in British ports. All the expenses of delay rested upon American packers. Those in this country who knew the facts were indignant.

We have already reviewed the April 13 proceedings in the British prize court regarding the detained meat cargoes. Though they were detained in November, the British Government was not ready to go on with the cases in April. The scandal of those proceedings reached this country in the letter correspondence of the Associated Press, though the British censors prevented cable news of it from crossing the Atlantic.

In May the British Government was disturbed at the growing discontent in America because of the detention policy, and also because Mr. Urion, who had been in England representing the packers and