| OCR Text |
Show INTERPRET IE LAW IN TBEIRDWN FAVOR France and Great Britain 1 : j Reply to American Protest Against Interference. i "WASHINGTON, April 20. According Accord-ing to authentic information reaching Washington, Great Britain and France, in their joint note replying to the American Amer-ican protect against -interference with neutral trade, make no attempt to dispute dis-pute prinejples contended for by the United States, but insist that those principles have been given legal interpretation inter-pretation and application by the allies in the blockade of Germany and Aus-1 Aus-1 1"8- This note, which will be handed to the state department within the nest day or two by the British and French embassadors, is understood to be long and extremely technical, treating of the whole subject on a purely legal basis ba-sis and relying largely upon the precedents prece-dents laid down "by the United States in the Civil war. It is said the allies assume that the United States government govern-ment does not contend that it has the right to ship goods without restrictions into Germany or Austria through contiguous con-tiguous neutral countries such as Holland, Hol-land, Sweden and Denmark. Right to Blockade. The concession of the right to blockade block-ade an enemy country, wiieh is universally univer-sally recognized, is regarded as necessarily neces-sarily carrying with it the right to regulate reg-ulate the admission of goods to a neutral country evidently destined to be transferred to the enemy. Conse- quently it is contended that it is per- fectly within the spirit of internationaJ law to limit imports into a neutral : country, such as Holland, of goods that might be of use to Germany and Aus- i tria to the amount normally consumed in the neutral country. I Moreover, it is argued that an inci- 1 dent to the exercise of this right of reg- ! ulatiou of imports is the right to search vessels approaching the neutral coun- ! try. in this connection the allies hold that while in early days it was possible ! to conduct such a search at sea, condi-, tions of modern sea traffic have made, this impossible ; hence it has become ; necessary to take the neutral ship to the nearest convenient poTt where the j cargo may bo examined. Delay Avoided. This is the explanation offered for : the apparently unreasonable diversion of many ships from their regular courses and what has been complained of as an unnecessary delay in search. It was with a view to reducing complaint on this score, it is pointed out, that arrangements ar-rangements were made for the Brit ish I embassy here to adviso would-be American Amer-ican shippers whether their cargoes probably would be subject to detention. Another point made by the allies is that the character of ships' papers has changed completely, owing to modern (Continued on Page Three.) i 'interpret the law i THEIR 01 FAVOR (Continued from Page One.) i-omnten'inl mot hod;-, that thpy no 1 lonor can bp relidl upon to supply all the evidence ncrossary to establish the ; I'luiratt-r of a cargo and its liability to Fciztire. The jractico of consigning goo'ls to onler or to indi visuals in neutral neu-tral countries who are not tlie real consumers con-sumers ot the goods but a rc actually (Hstribnt ing agents and forwarders to the enemy i-ouutry. the allies im-ii-d, has made it necessary in cases where neutral ships are detained to refer their cases to prk'.e courts for examination, instead of accenting the ship's papers at their face value. Refer to Recent Decision. Complaint by the I'nited States that the prize courts cannot be recognized as competent to render final decisions in tho cases nf sei.ed or detained vessels and cargoes is met by reference to t ho recent decision in England, to tlie effect that prize courts must be governed by tlie principle of international law, and where orders in council conflict tho latter lat-ter must give way. There is, also, it is pointed out, an i acknowledgment of the right of the ' neutral power whose ship is seized to appeal to the highest judicial tribunal and even to take, up the case diplomatically diplomat-ically if dissatisfied. This, it is pointed i out , was thc position assumed by (lie : ln ited States government dun ng the 'Civil war in the famous Bermuda cases, I when the British government waited I three years for a decision of the United I States' supreme court in the Spring Bok case. ' |
