which we have taken, in so far as it has necessitated interference with neutral commerce.

7. It may be noted in this connection that at the time of the Civil War the United States found themselves under the necessity of declaring a blockade of some 3,000 miles of coast line, a military operation for which the number of vessels available was at first very small. It was vital to the cause of the United States in that great struggle that they should be able to cut off the trade of the Southern States. The Confederate armies were dependent on supplies from overseas, and those supplies could not be obtained without exporting the cotton wherewith to pay for them.

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 centers 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 reexported.

8. 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 with a network of railways and waterways, which enables 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 unmeasured terms in which a group of prominent international lawyers of all nations condemned the doc

trine 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 protests against the decisions by which the ships and their cargoes were condemned.

11. 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. It is also essential that all unnecessary injury to neutrals should be avoided. With these conditions, it may be safely affirmed that the steps we are taking to intercept commodities on their way to and from Germany fully comply. We are interfering with no goods with which we should not be entitled to interfere by blockade if the geographical position and the conditions of Germany at present were such that her commerce passed through her own ports. We are taking the utmost possible care not to interfere with commerce genuinely destined for or proceeding from neutral countries. Furthermore, we have tempered the severity with which our measures might press upon neutrals by not applying the rule, which was invariable in the old form of blockade, that ships and goods on their way to or from the blockaded area are liable to condemnation.

12. The communication made by the United States Embassy on April 2 describes as a novel and quite unprecedented feature of the blockade that it embraces many neutral ports and coasts and has the effect of barring access to them. It does not appear that our measures can be properly so described. If we are successful in the efforts we are making to distinguish between the commerce of neutral and enemy countries, there will be no substantial interference with the trade of neutral ports, except in so far as they constitute ports of access to and exit from the enemy territory. There are at this moment many neutral ports which it would be mere affectation to regard as offering facilities only for the commerce of the neutral country in which they are situated, and the only commerce with which we propose to interfere is that of the enemy who seeks to make use of such ports for the purposes of transit to or from its own country.

13. One of the earlier passages in your excellency's memorandum was to the effect that the sovereignty of neutral nations in time of war suffers no diminution, except in so far as the practice and consent of civilized nations have limited it "by the recognition of certain now clearly determined rights" which it is considered may be exercised by nations at war, and these it defines as the right of capture and condemnation for unneutral service, for the carriage of contraband, and for breach of blockade. I may, however, be permitted to point out that the practice of nations on each of the subjects mentioned has not at any time been uniform or clearly determined, nor has the practice of any maritime nation always been consistent.

14. There are various particulars in which the exact method of carrying a blockade into effect has from time to time varied. The need of a public notification, the requisite standard of effectiveness, the locality of the blockading squadrons, the right of the individual

84610°-H. Doc. 2111, 64-2, pt 29

ship to a preliminary warning that the blockade is in force, and the penalty to be inflicted on a captured blockade runner, are all subjects on which different views have prevailed in different countries and in which the practice of particular countries has been altered from time to time. The one principle which is fundamental and has obtained universal recognition is that by means of blockade a belligerent is entitled to cut off, by effective means, the sea-borne commerce of his enemy.

15. It is the same with contraband. The underlying principle is well established, but as to the details there has been a wide variety of views. As for unneutral service the very term is of such recent introduction that many writers of repute on international law do not mention it-it is possible, in the view of His Majesty's Government in these circumstances, to maintain that the right of a belligerent to intercept the commerce of his enemy is limited in the way suggested in your excellency's communication.

16. There are certain subsidiary matters dealt with in your excellency's communication to which I think it well to refer. Among these may be mentioned your citation of the declaration of Paris, due, no doubt, to the words which occur in the memorandum sent by me to your excellency on the 1st of March, wherein it was stated that the allied Governments would hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin, and to our announcement that vessels might be required to discharge goods of enemy ownership as well as those of enemy origin or destination.

17. It is not necessary to discuss the extent to which the second rule of the declaration of Paris is affected by these measures or whether it could be held to apply at all as between Great Britain and the United States. In actual practice, however, we are not detaining goods on the sole ground that they are the property of an enemy. The purpose of the measures we are taking is to intercept commerce on its way from and to the enemy country. There are many cases in which proof that the goods were enemy property would afford strong evidence that they were of enemy origin or enemy destination, and it is only in such cases that we are detaining them. Where proof of enemy ownership would afford no evidence of such origin or destination we are not in practice detaining the goods.

18. His Majesty's Government have been gratified to observe that the measures which they are enforcing have 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.

19. I trust that in the light of the above explanations it will be realized that the measures to which we have resorted have been not only justified by the exigencies of the case, but can be defended as in accordance with general principles which have commended themselves to the Governments of both countries. I am glad to be able to assure your excellency that we shall continue to apply these measures with every desire to occasion the least possible amount of inconvenience to persons engaged in legitimate commerce.

I have, etc.,

(The New York Times, Aug. 4, 1915.)

E. GREY.

On May 20, 1915, the British submitted a memorandum touching upon interference with neutral rights:

British memorandum, May 20, 1915, in reference to the detention of American ships and cargoes. (The memorandum has a paragraph attached comparing the exports of the United States to belligerent and neutral countries in January and February, 1914, with those in the same months of 1915. An additional table shows an increase in the American exportation of bacon and lard to neutral countries in March, 1915.)

First. There are at the present moment three American ships detained in this country. Two of them are cotton ships, which are dealt with below. The third is the steamer Joseph W. Fordney. This vessel, with a cargo of foodstuffs consigned to E. Klingener at Malmo (Sweden), was brought into Kirkwall on April 8. She had been sighted by His Majesty's ships about 10 miles from the Norwegian coast, and had thereupon endeavored, with the evident desire to evade search, to escape rapidly into Norwegian territorial waters, but with

out success.

On the vessel's arrival in Kirkwall inquiries were at once addressed to His Majesty's minister at Stockholm, with regard to the consignee of the cargo, and a reply was received to the effect that no person of that name could be identified at Malmo, though there was a person of that name who resided at Gothenburg, and was manager of the Gothenburg branch of Hugo Hartvig, and who had stated that the consignments addressed to him on board the Joseph W. Fordney were intended for storage in Malmo.

Second. The suspicious conduct of the vessel in endeavoring to elude His Majesty's patrols and the known connections of the consignee of her cargo have tended to confirm other evidence which has come to the knowledge of His Majesty's Government that the foodstuffs were in reality destined for Germany. It was accordingly decided that the cargo must be placed in the prize court, and the vessel is at present discharging at Portishead, England, on the completion of which operation she will be released.

His Majesty's Government feel satisfied that in the circumstances of this case undue interference with American interests can not with reason be imputed to them.

Third. The number of neutral vessels carrying American cargoes and at present held up is 36. Of these, 23 carry cargoes of American cotton. The United States Government are aware that since the enforcement of the blockade measures announced in the supplement to the London Gazette of the 12th of March last His Majesty's Government have acted as regards shipments of American cotton in accordance with the provisions of an arrangement arrived at in collaboration with representatives of the American cotton interests. The terms of the arrangement are as follows:

A. All cotton for which contracts, sale, and freight engagements already have been made before March 2 is to be allowed free transit or bought at the contract price if stopped, provided the ship sails not later than the 31st of March.

B. Similar treatment is to be accorded all cotton insured before the 2d of March, provided it is put aboard not later than the 16th of March.

C. All shipments of cotton claiming the above protection are to be declared before sailing and documents produced and certificates obtained from consular officers or other authorities fixed by the Government.

Fourth. In accepting this scheme, which, it may be noted, applies to shipments of cotton for a neutral destination only, the principal representatives of the American cotton interests described it to His Majesty's ambassador at Washington as conceding all that the American interests could properly ask. It was never suggested that vessels or cargoes with an enemy destination should be allowed to proceed. His Majesty's Government were, moreover, given to understand that the provisions of the arrangement were acceptable to the United States Government.

Fifth. It is intended shortly to furnish a statement showing precisely what cargoes or portions of cargoes His Majesty's Government have dealt with under the above arrangement, and as regards those which they have decided to purchase at the contract price under the terms of paragraph A of the arrangement direct discussions have already been opened with the special representatives of the American parties interested in London.

Sixth. A considerable portion of the cotton has already been sold, and arrangements are being made for handing over the proceeds to the parties entitled to receive the total value as a first installment of the completed transaction. It is obvious that all these arrangements require some time for adjustment. Meanwhile it is not believed that the original owners can, as appears to be apprehended, be suffering acutely by the delay of full payment. It is to be presumed that in accordance with the customs of trade the owners drew bills to the value of their goods before or at the time of shipment; and, if such bills have been negotiated in the usual way, it is difficult to understand why the drawers should be put to inconvenience on this account, at least before the date when the bills fall due.

Seventh. On an impartial review of the facts it will, His Majesty's Government feel sure, be admitted that no arbitrary interference with American interests has, in regard to these cargoes, occurred, seeing that His Majesty's Government has acted throughout in conformity with the terms of an arrangement agreeable to the interests concerned and that United States citizens will suffer no pecuniary loss.

Eighth. As regards other American cargoes or portions of cargoes which have been placed in the prize court. His Majesty's Government resort to this measure in cases where either the goods concerned are contraband or there is evidence that although ostensibly consigned to a person in neutral countries they are in reality destined to the enemy in contravention of the rules of blockade. The right to submit such cases to the public investigation of a judicial tribunal is one which His Majesty's Government can not forego, and they feel convinced that the enlightened opinion in the United States can not adversely criticize their course of action in this respect.

Ninth. It is true that a number of these cases have been pending in the prize court for some time. This is notably the case in regard to certain vessels carrying large shipments of meat and lard osten