had been drawn to some of the German irregularities of warfare in a memorandum of Feb. 19, and adds:

Since that time Lord Bryce's report, based on evidence carefully sifted by legal experts, describing the atrocities committed in Belgium, the poisoning of wells in Southwest Africa, the use of poisonous gases against the troops in Flanders, and finally the sinking of the Lusitania without an opportunity to passengers and noncombatants to save their lives have shown how indispensable it is that we should leave unused no justifiable method of defending ourselves.

In the note in which this argument is used the British Foreign Secretary contends, in answer to the American objection to the Orders in Council, that his Government is unable to admit that a belligerent violates any fundamental principle of international law by applying a blockade in such a way as to cut off the enemy's commerce with foreign countries through neutral ports, "if the circumstances render such an application of the principles of blockade the only means of making it effective." It is asserted by Sir Edward Grey that the only question that can arise in regard to the new character of blockade instituted by the British Government, the so-called longdistance blockade, is whether the measures taken conform to "the spirit and principles of the essence of the rules of war," these being the words used in the American note of March 30.

Arguing from that basis, Sir Edward Grey cites the Union blockade of Confederate ports in the American civil war and points out that, in order to meet a new difficulty produced by the fact that neighboring neutral territory afforded convenient centres from which contraband could be introduced into the Southern States and from which blockade running could be facilitated, the United States applied and enforced the doctrine of continuous voyage. Under this application, Sir Edward Grey points out, "goods destined for enemy territory were intercepted before they reached the neutral ports from which they were to be reexported." The argument follows:

It may be noted in this connection that at the time of the civil war the United States found themselves under the neces

To cut off this trade the United States could only rely upon a blockade. The difficulties confronting the Federal Government were in part due to the fact that neighboring neutral territory afforded convenient centres from which contraband could be introduced into the territory of their enemies and from which blockade running could be facilitated. Your Excellency will no doubt remember how, in order to meet this new difficulty, the old principles relating to contraband and blockade were developed, and the doctrine of continuous voyage was applied and enforced, under which goods destined for the enemy territory were intercepted before they reached the neutral ports from which they were to be re-exported.

The difficulties which imposed upon the United States the necessity of reshaping some of the old rules are somewhat akin to those with which the Allies are now faced in dealing with the trade of their enemy. Adjacent to Germany are various neutral countries which afford her convenient opportunities for carrying on her trade with foreign countries. Her own territories are covered by a network of railways and waterways, which enable her commerce to pass as conveniently through ports in such neutral countries as through her own. A blockade limited to enemy ports would leave open routes by which every kind of German commerce could pass almost as easily as through the ports in her own territory. Rotterdam is indeed the nearest outlet for some of the industrial districts of Germany.

As a counterpoise to the freedom with which one belligerent may send his commerce across a neutral country without compromising its neutrality, the other belligerent may fairly claim to intercept such commerce before it has reached, or after it has left, the neutral State, provided, of course, that he can establish that the commerce with which he interferes is the commerce of his enemy and not commerce which is bona fide destined for or proceeding from the neutral State. It seems, accordingly, that if it be recognized that a blockade is in certain cases the appropriate method of intercepting the trade of an enemy country, and if the blockade can only become effective by extending it to enemy commerce passing

through neutral ports, such an extension is defensible and in accordance with principles which have met with general acceptance.

To the contention that such action is not directly supported by written authority, it may be replied that it is the business of writers on international law to formulate existing rules rather than to offer suggestions for their adaptation to altered circumstances, and your Excellency will remember the unineasured terms in which a group of prominent international lawyers of all nations condemned the doctrine which had been laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Springbok, a doctrine upheld by the Claims Commission at Washington in 1873. But the United States and the British Government took a broader view and looked below the surface at the underlying purpose, and the Government of this country, whose nationals were the sufferers by the extension and development of the old methods of blockade made by the United States during the civil war, abstained from all protest against the decisions by which the ships and their cargoes were condemned.

What is really important in the general interest is that adaptations of the old rules should not be made unless they are consistent with the general principles upon which an admitted belligerent right is based.

Thus it is contended that Germany is in a position of peculiar advantage in the shipment of goods to neutral ports. In supporting the British restrictions on trade with neutral ports near German territory, it is asserted that a blockade limited to enemy ports would have open routes by which German commerce could pass almost as easily as through the ports in her own territory. By this argument Great Britain seeks to show that she found precedent for her "longdistance blockade" in steps taken by the United States in attempting to prevent supplies from reaching the Southern Confederacy. The position of the British Government is that if a blockade is the appropriate method of intercepting the trade of an enemy country and can be made effective only by extending it to enemy commerce through neutral ports, the extension is in accordance with principles generally accepted.

Assurances are contained in the British response to the American communication of March 30 that Great Britain is not interfering with goods with which she

would not be entitled to interfere by blockade if the geographical position and conditions of Germany at this time were such that her commerce passed through her own ports. The utmost possible care is being taken, it is declared, not to interfere with commerce "genuinely destined for or proceeding from neutral countries." The only commerce with which Great Britain proposes to interfere is that of the enemy.

The main argument of Great Britain is that when the established underlying principles governing blockade and contraband are not violated it is permissible to adopt new measures of enforcement. In view of this and the contention that there has been no violation of the underlying principles, Great Britain holds that it is impossible to maintain that the right of a belligerent to intercept the commerce of an enemy is limited in the way suggested by the United States.

Sir Edward Grey says the British Government has been gratified to observe that the measures Great Britain is enforcing have had no detrimental effect on the commerce of the United States. Figures of recent months, he points out, 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 of the British Government, dated July 31, supplementary to the answer to the American note of March 30, is primarily a response to the so-called caveat telegram of Secretary Lansing sent on July 14, in which notice was given of the intention of this Government to insist on the rights of American citizens under the principles of international law hitherto established without limitation or impairment by Orders in Council or other municipal legislation, and to refuse to recognize the validity of prize court proceedings taken under British municipal law in derogation of the international law rights of American citizens.

Sir Edward Grey says he is not aware of any differences between the two Governments as to the principles of law ap

plicable to cases before the prize courts, and then discusses prize court procedure at length, quoting Lord Stowell in the case of the Fox to show that a prize court must care for the interests of subjects of other countries as well as for the interests of its own Government, but that the court must assume that there is no violation of the rights of the subjects of other countries in the orders which it receives from its own Government.

Sir Edward Grey then makes the suggestion that if appeals open to dissatisfied American litigants in the prize court are denied by British appellate courts, an international tribunal shall be called on to decide. The United States and Great Britain, he says, have both conceded that the decisions of national prize courts may properly be subjected to international review-by the Jay Treaty

of 1793 and the Treaty of Washington of 1871. It is clear, therefore, he says, that both Governments have adopted the principle that the decisions of a national prize court may be open to review in certain circumstances; but if the United States should take a contrary view Great Britain would be prepared to negotiate with the United States as to the best means of procedure to apply the principle mentioned. But Sir Edward Grey hopes that the British willingness to make concessions will obviate necessity for this procedure.

The compulsory discharge of the Neches cargo because it came from belligerent territory held by Germany made cause for complaint in the American note of July 15, and the British reply thereto appears in the subjoined correspondence.

The Secretary of State to Ambassador W. H. Page:

Telegram-Paraphrase. No. 1852. Department of State, Washington, July 15, 1915. Ambassador Page is informed that it has been brought to the attention of the department that the steamship Neches, of American register, sailing from Rotterdam for the United States, carrying a general cargo, after being detained at the Downs, was brought to London, where it was required by the British authorities to discharge cargo, the property of American citizens.

It appears that the ground advanced to sustain this action is that the goods originated, in part at least, in Belgium, and fall, therefore, within the provisions of Paragraph 4 of the Order in Council of March 11, which stipulates that every merchant vessel sailing from a port other than a German port, carrying goods of enemy origin, may be required to discharge such goods in a British or allied port.

Ambassador Page is instructed in this case to reiterate the position of the Government of the United States as set forth

in the department's instruction of March 30, 1915, with respect to the Order in Council mentioned, the international invalidity of which the Government of the United States regards as plainly illustrated by the present instance of the seizure of American-owned goods passing from the neutral port of Rotterdam to a neutral port of the United States, merely because the goods came originally from territory in the possession of an enemy of Great Britain.

Mr. Page is also instructed to inform the Foreign Office that the legality of this seizure cannot be admitted and that, in the view of the Government of the United States, it violates the right of the citizens of one neutral to trade with those of another, as well as with those of belligerents, except in contraband or in violation of a legal blockade of an enemy seaport; and that the right of American owners of goods to bring them out of Holland, in due course, in neutral ships must be insisted upon by the United States, even though such goods may have come originally from the territories of enemies of Great Britain. He is directed further to insist upon the desire

of this Government that goods taken from the Neches, which are the property of American citizens, should be expeditiously released to be forwarded to their

destination, and to request that he be advised of the British Government's intended course in this matter at the earliest moment convenient to that Government.

Ambassador W. H. Page to the Secre

tary of State:

(Telegram.)

American Embassy, London, July 31, 1915. Sir Edward Grey has today sent me the following note:

The note which your Excellency addressed to me on the 17th inst. respecting the detention of the cargo of the steamship Neches has, I need hardly say, received the careful attention of his Majesty's Government.

The note which I had the honor to send to your Excellency on the 23d inst. has already explained the view of his Majesty's Government on the legal aspect of the question, though it was prepared before your Excellency's communication of the 17th had been received, and, pending consideration by the Government of the United States of the views and arguments set forth in the British note of the 23d, it is unnecessary for me to say more on the question of right or of law.

There is, however, one general observation that seems relevant to the note from your Excellency respecting the cargo of the Neches.

It is the practice of the German Government, in the waters through which the Neches was passing, to sink neutral as well as British merchant vessels, irrespective of the destination of the vessel or origin of the cargo, and without proper regard or provision for the safety of passengers or crews, many of whom have lost their lives in consequence. There can be no question that this action

is contrary to the recognized and settled rules of international law, as well as to the principles of humanity.

His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, have adhered to the rule of visit and search, and have observed the obligation to bring into port and submit to a prize court any ships or cargoes with regard to which they think they have a good case for detention or for condemnation as contraband.

His Majesty's Government are not aware, except from the published correspondence between the United States and Germany, to what extent reparation has been claimed from Germany by neutrals for loss of ships, lives, and cargoes, nor how far these acts have been the subject even of protest by the neutral Governments concerned.

While those acts of the German Government continue, it seems neither reasonable nor just that his Majesty's Government should be pressed to abandon the rights claimed in the British note of the 23d and to allow goods from Germany to pass freely through waters effectively patrolled by British ships of war.

If, however, it be alleged that, in particular cases and special circumstances, hardships may be inflicted on citizens of neutral countries, his Majesty's Government are ready in such cases to examine the facts in a spirit of consideration for the interest of neutrals, and in this spirit they are prepared to deal with the cargo of the Neches, to which your Excellency has called attention, if it is held that the particular circumstances of this case fall within this category. PAGE.