OCR Text |
Show over A merican cargoes cs " be submitted submit-ted to an international tribunal, and obviously ob-viously ho is alluding to the tribunal provided for in the Br van treaty. 1 1' we should submit continuous wrongs to such tribunals there would be no settlement settle-ment before the end of the war, and Germany would be justified in demanding demand-ing that her submarine warfare, should be submitted to similar arbitration. Another difficulty appears vaguely but none the less ominously in prospect. Not Iontf ffeo Great Britain declared cotton Contraband. Let us suppose that Great Britain should place practically everything every-thing on the contraband list. She would then insist that even if the Amerio.au rule were applied she would have the right to seize contraband when it was destined for' Germany, even though consigned to a neutral country. We might argue that certain things ought not to be contraband, and might make out a very excellent ease, but a belligerent bel-ligerent has a right to decide what shall be contra ha ml and can ignore neutral protests. The only recourse then is arbitration ar-bitration or force. It is to be hoped, however, that Great Britain will see the justice of the American position as Germany has seen it. Germany cannot effectually blockade block-ade Great "Britain, nor can Great Britain effectually blockade Germany. Germany cannot ruin Britain's sea commerce, and Britain cannot starve Germany. Jn such a case wisdom as well as justice should dictate strict conformity con-formity with the rules of international law by both belligerents. THE BLOCKADE. The time is approaching when President Presi-dent Wilson must bring to a focus the negotiations with Great Britain regarding regard-ing the blockade and the seizure of American goods. While Germany lias complied with our. demands relatiug to submarine warfare, the concession appears ap-pears to have a string tied to it. The implication is that the United States government must force Gicat Britain to comply with international law as it relates re-lates to the freedom of the seas if Germany is to abide by international Jaw as it relates to submarine warfare. Should Germany be displeased with the results of the negotiations between the United States and Great Britain she may resume her policy of reprisal by means of submarine, contending that she caunot be required in justice to adhere ad-here to all the rules of international law while Great Britain continues to break some of those rules. They may quote the language of Sir Edward Grey, who. when excusing the British acts of reprisal, said that Great Britain could not observe all "the niceties of international interna-tional law" while Germany was violating violat-ing the law. Sir Kdward Grey's phrase was unfortunate, un-fortunate, and since then he has changed his position. To support the British blockade and the seizure of American goods bound to or from neutral neu-tral ports he now boldly contends that the British practice is in conformity with international law as interpreted by the United States Supreme court itself. Great Britain cites the famous Springbok Spring-bok case to uphold her contention, and wp cite the no less famous Peterhof case to prove her wrong. During the civil war, when the warships war-ships of the north were blockading southern ports, one of the ships seized the English merchantman Springbok, although al-though it was not bound directly to a blockaded port, but to the neutral port of Nassau in the West Indies. The supreme court upheld the seizure and condemnation of the entire cargo, contraband con-traband and non-contraband, on the doctrine of the continuous voyage, "under "un-der which goods destined for the enemy territory were intercepted before they reached the neutral ports from which they were to be re-exported." The cargo was intended finally for one of the blockaded southern ports. The English merchant ship Peterhof was seized while on the way to Mata-moras, Mata-moras, a Mexican port on the Rio Grande. The cargo was destined for Brownsville, Tex., a port that had not been declared under blockade. The supreme su-preme court in this ease upheld the seizure of the contraband, but not the seizure of tbe non-contraband. The language lan-guage of the court in this decision can be read with edification by the statesmen states-men of Berlin and London: "Such trade with unrestricted inland commerce between such port aud the enemy s territory impairs undoubtedly, and very seriously impairs, the value of the blockade of the enemy's coast. But in cases such as that now io judgment we administer the public law of nations aDd are not at liberty to inquire what is for the particular advantage or disadvantage disad-vantage of our own country or any other country." The application of the two cases to the present situation is obvious. Great Britain contends that it has a right, to seize cargoes, whether they be contraband, contra-band, non-contraband or mixed, if such cargoes are destined for Germany, even though they be consigned to a neutral port. According to the rule laid down by our supreme court in tho Peterhof case, the British would have no right to confiscate non-contraband consigned to a neutral port, even though destined ultimately ul-timately for Germany. According to the British rule, supposing suppos-ing that the only countries at war were England and Germany, British ships could seize goods sent to any country bordering on Germany. The situation can be made more striking by supposing a case nearer home. If Germany should gain control of the sea and blockade Canada, and if the German warships seized all outgoing or incoming American ships on the theory that the goods were bound to or from Canada, then Germany would be enforcing tho rule for which England now contends. Some serious obstacles are in the way of a settlement with Great Britain on a satisfactory basis. One is the Bryan "cooling time treaty." Sir Edward Grey mi ,-rted thai the contrlv stfi |