e

blockaded territory be rigidly. enforced, innocent shipments may be. freely transported to and from the United States through neutral countries to belligerent territory without being subject to the penalties of contraband traffic or breach of blockade, much less to detention, requisition, or confiscation.

Moreover, the rules of the declaration of Paris of 1856-among them that free ships make free goods will hardly at this day be disputed by the signatories of that solemn agreement.

at sea.

His Majesty's Government, like the Government of the United States, have often and explicitly held that these rights represent the best usage of warfare in the dealings of belligerents with neutrals In this connection I desire to direct attention to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States in the case of the Peterhof, which arose out of the Civil War, and to the fact that that opinion was unanimously sustained in the award of the arbitration commission of 1871, to which the case was presented at the request of Great Britain. From that time to the declaration of London of 1909, adopted with modifications by the order in council of the 23d of October last, these rights have not been seriously questioned by the British Government. And no claim on the part of Great Britain of any justification for interfering with these clear rights of the United States and its citizens as neutrals could be admitted. To admit it would be to assume an attitude of unneutrality toward the present enemies of Great Britain which would be obviously inconsistent with the solemn obligations of this Government in the present circumstances; and for Great Britain to make such a claim would be for her to abandon and set at naught the principles for which she has consistently and earnestly contended in other times and circumstances.

The note of His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs which accompanies the order in council, and which bears the same date, notifies the Government of the United States of the establishment of a blockade which is, if defined by the terms of the order in council, to include all the coasts and ports of Germany and every port of possible access to enemy territory. But the novel and quite unprecedented feature of that blockade, if we are to assume it to be properly so defined, is that it embraces many neutral posts and coasts, bars access to them, and subjects all neutral ships seeking to approach them to the same suspicion that would attach to them were they bound for the ports of the enemies of Great Britain, and to unusual risks and penalties.

It is manifest that such limitations, risks, and liabilities placed upon the ships of a neutral power on the high seas, beyond the right of visit and search and the right to prevent the shipment of contraband already referred to, are a distinct invasion of the sovereign rights of the nation whose ships, trade, or commerce is interfered with.

The Government of the United States is, of course, not oblivious to the great changes which have occurred in the conditions and means of naval warfare since the rules hitherto governing legal blockade were formulated. It might be ready to admit that the old form of "close" blockade, with its cordon of ships in the immediate offing of the blockaded ports, is no longer practicable in face of an enemy

possessing the means and opportunity to make an effective defense by the use of submarines, mines, and aircraft; but it can hardly be maintained that, whatever form of effective blockade may be made use of, it is impossible to conform at least to the spirit and principles of the established rules of war. If the necessities of the case should seem to render it imperative that the cordon of blockading vessels be extended across the approaches to any neighboring neutral port or country, it would seem clear that it would still be easily practicable to comply with the well-recognized and reasonable prohibition of international law against the blockading of neutral ports by according free admission and exit to all lawful traffic with neutral ports through the blockading cordon. This traffic would, of course, include all outward-bound traffic from the neutral country and all inward-bound traffic to the neutral country, except contraband in transit to the enemy. Such procedure need not conflict in any respect with the rights of the belligerent maintaining the blockade, since the right would remain with the blockading vessels to visit and search all ships either entering or leaving the neutral territory which they were in fact but not of right investing.

The Government of the United States notes that in the order in council His Majesty's Government gives as their reason for entering upon a course of action which they are aware is without precedent in modern warfare the necessity they conceive themselves to have been placed under to retaliate upon their enemies for measures of a similar nature which the latter have announced it their intention to adopt and which they have to some extent adopted; but the Government of the United States, recalling the principles upon which His Majesty's Government have hitherto been scrupulous to act, interprets this as merely a reason for certain extraordinary activities on the part of His Majesty's naval forces and not as an excuse for or prelude to any unlawful action. If the course pursued by the present enemies of Great Britain should prove to be in fact tainted by illegality and disregard of the principles of war sanctioned by enlightened nations, it can not be supposed, and this Government does not for a moment suppose, that His Majesty's Government would wish the same taint to attach to their own actions or would cite such illegal acts as in any sense or degree a justification for similar practices on their part, in so far as they affect neutral rights.

It is thus that the Government of the United States interprets the language of the note of His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs which accompanies the copy of the order in council which was handed to the ambassador of the United States near the Government in London and by him transmitted to Washington.

This Government notes with gratification that "wide discretion is afforded to the prize court in dealing with the trade of neutrals in such manner as may in the circumstances be deemed just, and that full provision is made to facilitate claims by persons interested in any goods placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court under the order "; that "the effect of the order in council is to confer certain powers upon the executive officers of His Majesty's Government"; and that "the extent to which these powers will be actually exercised and the degree of severity with which the measures of

T

نم

T

blockade authorized will be put into operation are matters which will depend on the administrative orders issued by the Government and the decisions of the authorities especially charged with the duty of dealing with individual ships and cargoes according to the merits of each case." This Government further notes with equal satisfaction that the declaration of the British Government that "the instructions to be issued by His Majesty's Government to the fleet and to the customs officials and executive committees concerned will impress upon them the duty of acting with the usual dispatch consistent with the object in view, and of showing in every case such consideration for neutrals as may be compatible with that object, which is, succinctly stated, to establish a blockade to prevent vessels from carrying goods for or coming from Germany.'

In view of these assurances formally given to this Government it is confidently expected that the extensive powers conferred by the order in council on the executive officers of the Crown will be restricted by "orders issued by the Government" directing the exercise of their discretionary powers in such a manner as to modify in practical application those provisions of the order in council which, if strictly enforced, would violate neutral rights and interrupt legitimate trade. Relying on the faithful performance of these voluntary assurances by His Majesty's Government, the United States. takes it for granted that the approach of American merchantmen to neutral ports situated upon the long line of coast affected by the order in council will not be interfered with when it is known that they do not carry goods which are contraband of war or goods destined to or proceeding from ports within the belligerent territory affected.

The Government of the United States assumes with the greater confidence that His Majesty's Government will thus adjust their practice to the recognized rules of international law, because it is manifest that the British Government have adopted an extraordinary method of "stopping cargoes destined for or coming from the enemy's territory," which, owing to the existence of unusual conditions in modern warfare at sea, it will be difficult to restrict to the limits which have been heretofore required by the law of nations. Though the area of operations is confined to "European waters, including the Mediterranean," so great an area of the high seas is covered and the cordon of ships is so distant from the territory affected that neutral vessels must necessarily pass through the blockading force in order to reach important neutral ports which Great Britain, as a belligerent, has not the legal right to blockade, and which therefore it is presumed she has no intention of claiming to blockade. The Scandinavian and Danish ports, for example, are open to American trade. They are also free, so far as the actual enforcement of the order in council is concerned, to carry on trade with German Baltic ports, although it is an essential element of blockade that it bears with equal severity upon all neutrals.

This Government, therefore, infers that the commanders of His Majesty's ships of war engaged in maintaining the so-called blockade will be instructed to avoid an enforcement of the proposed measures of nonintercourse in such a way as to impose restrictions upon neutral trade more burdensome than those which have been regarded

as inevitable when the ports of a belligerent are actually blockaded by the ships of its enemy.

The possibility of serious interruption of American trade under the order in council are so many and the methods proposed are so unusual, and seem liable to constitute so great an impediment and embarrassment to neutral commerce, that the Government of the United States, if the order in council is strictly enforced, apprehends many interferences with its legitimate trade which will impose upon His Majesty's Government heavy responsibilities for acts of the British authorities clearly subversive of the rights of neutral nations on the high seas. It is therefore expected that His Majesty's Government, having considered these possibilities, will take the steps necessary to avoid them, and in the event that they should unhappily occur will be prepared to make full reparation for every act which under the rules of international law constitutes a violation of neutral rights.

66

As stated in its communication of October 22, 1914, this Government will insist that the rights and duties of the United States and its citizens in the present war be defined by the existing rules of international law and the treaties of the United States, irrespective of the provisions of the declaration of London, and that this Government reserves to itself the right to enter a protest or demand in each case in which those rights and duties so defined are violated or their free exercise interfered with by the authorities of the British Government." In conclusion, you will reiterate to His Majesty's Government that this statement of the views of the Government of the United States is made in the most friendly spirit and in accordance with the uniform candor which has characterized the relations of the two Governments in the past, and which has been in large measure the foundation of the peace and amity existing between the two nations without interruption for a century.

BRYAN.

Four months later, July 23, Britain made reply to our note on neutral rights:

[The New York Times, July 24, 1915.]

British note, July 23, 1915, replying to the American note of March 30, in regard to British violation of neutral rights.

The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the American ambassador:

1. On the 2d of April your excellency handed to me a copy of a communication containing the criticisms of the United States Government on the measures we have been constrained to take on account of the menace to peaceful commerce resulting from the German submarine policy. This communication has received the most careful consideration of His Majesty's Government.

2. I fully appreciate the friendly spirit and the candor which are shown in the communication, and, replying in the same spirit, I trust that I may be able to convince your excellency, and also the administration at Washington, that the measures we have announced are not only reasonable and necessary in themselves but constitute no more than an adaptation of the old principles of blockade to the peculiar circumstances with which we are confronted.

3. I need scarcely dwell on the obligation incumbent upon the allies to take every step in their power to overcome their common enemy, in

view of the shocking violation of the recognized rules and principles of civilized warfare of which he has been guilty during the present struggle. Your excellency's attention has already been drawn to some of these proceedings in the memorandum which I handed to you on the 19th February. 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 German Southwest Africa; the use of poisonous gases against the troops in Flanders; and, finally, the sinking of the Lusitania without any 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.

4. Your excellency will remember that in my notes of the 13th and 15th March I explained that the allied Governments intended to meet the German attempt to stop all supplies of every kind from leaving or entering British or French ports by themselves intercepting goods going to or from Germany. I read the communication from your excellency's Government, not as questioning the necessity for our taking all the steps open to us to cripple the enemy's trade, but as directed solely to the question of the legitimacy of the particular measures adopted

5. In the various notes which I have received from your excellency the right of a belligerent to establish a blockade of the enemy ports is admitted, a right which has obviously no value save in so far as it gives power to a belligerent to cut off the sea-borne exports and imports of his enemy. The contention which I understand the United States Government now puts forward is that if a belligerent is so circumstanced that his commerce can pass through adjacent neutral ports as easily as through ports in his own territory, his opponent has no right to interfere, and must restrict his measures of blockade in such a manner as to leave such avenues of commerce still open to his adversary.

This is a contention which His Majesty's Government feels unable to accept and which seems to them unsustainable, either in point of law or upon principles of international equity. They are 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. The Government of the United States, indeed, intimates its readiness to take into account "the great changes which have occurred in the conditions and means of naval warfare since the rules hitherto governing legal blockade were formulated," and recognizes that "the form of close blockade, with its cordon of ships in the immediate offing of the blockaded ports, is no longer practicable in the face of an enemy possessing the means and opportunity to make an effective defense by the use of submarines, mines, and aircraft."

6. The only question, then, which can arise in regard to the measures resorted to for the purpose of carrying out a blockade upon these extended lines is whether, to use your excellency's words, they "conform to the spirit and principles of the essence of the rules of war"; and we shall be content to apply this test to the action