Jasper County Democrat, Volume 18, Number 24, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 June 1915 — GIST BRITAIN’S NOTE TO AMERICA DEFENDS SEIZURE [ARTICLE]

GIST BRITAIN’S NOTE TO AMERICA DEFENDS SEIZURE

Blockade to Be Tightened—No Relief Is Seen. NO ANSWER TO CHIEF ISSUES England Explains Action, But Doe* Not Answer United States Protest on Holding American Vessels. . .•• • '- : y . - - ■ * s Washington, June 25.—Lord Crete’s memorandum to Ambassador Page, dealing with the complaint of detention of American cargoes bound for neutral ports, was made public by tho state department. State department oflfcials would not comment on the memorandum. In the opinion of experts on international law who have followed Ijhe controversy between the two governments, the memorandum Is not of a character to afford much satisfaction. It holds out little expectation of material relief to American commerce from the hardships Inflicted upon it by British regulations and violation of tho principles of International law as pointed out by the United States in its note of March SO. Consequently its effect, it is believed, will be rather to sharpen the edge of the issue between the two governments. Note Merely Explains. Ip his note of transmittal. Ambassador Page says that the memorandum is not intended as an answer to tho principles set forth in tho note of March 30, but merely an “explanation of concrete cases and the regulations under which they are dealt with.” The inference would be that a note from tho British foreign office dealing with the principles discussed by the United States in the note of March 30 might be expected later. But Lord Crewe does not say that it may be. Moreover, as it is construed here by authorities on iifternational law, the British memorandum made public this evening contains distinct denial of certain rights for which the United States in the note of March 80 contends. So to an extent at least it must be taken as an answer to that note. In the note of March 30 the United States asserted that a nation’s sovereignty over its ships at sea suffered no diminution in times of war “except in so far as the practice and consent of civilized nations has limited it by the recognition of certainly clearly defined rights which it is conceded, may be exercised by nations which are at war." These admitted righA of the belligerents are visit an? search, Capture and condemnation if visit and search reveals contraband and finally the right of blockade of enemy ports. Bays Law Is Violated. The complaint of the United States was that the interference of Great Britain was not confined within these rights, but, went far beyond them. The principal complaint of the United Stateß has been that Great Britain, not content with the right of visit and search, has held up American cargoes of noncontraband' bound for neutral ports and taken them into British ports, where they have been detained to the great detriment of American trade with neutral countries. The British offer to pay has not been accepted by the United States as full recompense and it certainly has not been regarded as justifying such high-handed action. Payment for a specific cargo does not compensate for a continuous trade lost to the United States by the taking~over~by Great" Britain of cargoes and the detention of ships for protracted periods, thereby causing the loss of a voyage or voyages. Therefore, the United States said to Great Britain in the note of March 30 that such liabilities placed upon a ship of neutral power were “a distinct invasion of the sovereign rights of the nations whose ships, trade or commerce is interfered with.” And such invasion of the rights of the United States was vigorously protested. Ignores Law Question. Lord Grewe in his memorandum makes no reference to the principles of international law which the United States demanded that Great Britain respect and in the view taken here seeks to override the American protest. He details the “concessions” which he says Great Britain has made to American commerce, such for instance as the payment of £450,000 to various American shippers of cotton. The rejoinder made by the Washington. authorities la. this, contention of

Lord Crewe is that the Britfsh concessions fall short of American rights. Two paragraphs of Lord Crewe’s memorandum were considered of special importance as indicating that Great Britain intends to tighten rather than loosen, her blockade. These were: His majesty’s government 'will be prepared hereafter to give special consideration to cases presented to them and involving particular hardships, ts the goods concerned are required for neutral governments or municipalities, or in respect of works of public utility and where payment can be shown to have been made before the first of March, 1915. W ith the above exceptions his majesty's government regret they .cannot continue to deal through the diplomatic channel with individual cases, but they would again point out that special provision is made for the consideration of sucn cases in the prize court. Paragraph 16 was taken to mean that hereafter the United States would experience greater difficulty in getting any goods from any port which Great Britain regards as an enemy port, and paragraph 17 is taken to be notice that Great Britain intends to end further diplomatic discussion of her seizures. New Note to Britain Ready. These positions of Great Britain, it is thought, will increase the demand in the United States for a definite understanding between the United States and his majesty’s government as to the extent which Great Britain proposes to interfere* with American commerce beyond the point which the United States under the state department’s interpretation of international law concedes it has the right to interfere. A new note to Great Britain has been under consideration by the department for some time, and as Lord Crewe gives no assurance that Great Britain intends to discuss at an early date the principles laid down by the United States in its note of Xiarch 30, further insistence upon those principles probably will be made by the United States without much delay. The British embassy announced that in cases where it was impossible for American shippers tQ get goods out of Germany before June 15 the time has been extended. It will be necessary, however, for shippers to show that they had not time up to June 15 to get their goods out of Germany. The embassy states that the British consular authorities at Rotterdam have been informed as to the conditions connected with the permits in these cases.