New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
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 at sea. 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 the 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 nought 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 ports 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 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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account