The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1915. AMERICA'S NOTE TO BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2613, 9 November 1915, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1915. AMERICA'S NOTE TO BRITAIN

« The Note which the United States Government has sent to Britain protesting against the interference with American trade caused by the British blockade gives point to the contention that the attitude of the Washington authorities as regards the war indicates a tendenev to place commercial interests above the great principles of justice and freedom for which Britain and her Allies are fighting. Of course every neutral nation in times of war has a right to protect its trade in every legitimate way, but one would naturally expect that a great democratic Power like the United States, which professes to be in a special sense the guardian of liberty and the rights of man, would be more emphatic in its denunciation of such crimes as the violation of the neutrality of Belgium, and less insistent in its complaints about commercial inconveniences. Many Americans of high standing have deplored the fact.that, during this unparalleled crisis in the world's history, the American Government has been content to play such a selfish and uninspiring role. The latest American Note tells us that the United States unhesitatingly assumes the task of championing neutral rights in matters of trade; and yet she took no action when neutral Belgium was .invaded by German armies, her cities sacked, her women outraged, and her people blackmailed and starved, It is satisfactory to know that the tone and contents of the Note will be thoroughly distasteful to a verylarge section of the American public,. whose views recently found for-

cible expression in a letter sent to England by the editor of an American journal. Tou have an entirely erroneous view of American public opinion on England's regulation of ocean traffic (he writes). So fin- as I can judge, tho people here are not seriously disturbed by what the British Government has, done to interfere with our trade. Personally I- think tho British authorities have been very moderate in the course they have adopted. I consider that the entire ocean traffic is a contemptible bagatelle compared with tho priceless possession of human freedom which tho Allies are lighting to maintain for von and mo and the world. I havo'nothing but pity and contempt for the supporters of a policy that involves tho balancing of English and American liberty against dollars and cents, pounds, shillings, and pence. Better that every dollar's worth of property in every English-speaking country should be destroyed as Mr. Asquith stated, and that the English-speaking race should be annihilated, than that we should become subject to Prussian militarism. The Note has much to say about American commercial interests, but appears to bo quite unconcerned as to the result of the tremendous struggle for human freedom. The American demands are unreasonable. Britain has endeavoured to minimiso tho_ inconvenience which her blockade is causing to neutrals, but the grip which our Navy has taken on Germany's throat will not bo relaxed. The London newspapers comment on tho narrowness of outlook exhibited by the Note, and firmly declare that its requirements cannot bo complied with. As Mn. Asquith remarked on a former occasion, Britain must dccline to allow herself "to bo_ strangled in a network of juridical nicotics" in this life and death struggle with a Power which has shown the utmost contempt for the dictates of intcrna- : tional law. Statistics have been published which must convince any impartial judge that large quantities of contraband goods aro being sent to the enemy through neutral countries. It is of vital importance to us that this should be stopped. If we. accepted the contentions of the American Government wo would throw away much of the advantage which our superior sea power has given us. Germany is whining about tho "freedom of the seas" only because the command of the seas is ours, and not hers. The best section of the American Press takes a broad and tolerant view of Britain's blockado methods. The following extract from an article in the Boston Transcript, which shows how tho United States acted when faced with a similar problem to that with which Britain is now confronted, should be convincing to every open-minded American: — _ The trouble with the average American in discussing the rights of neutrals at sea is his error in overlooking the broad principles we ourselves laid down in our own Civil 'War. Our Courts have held that where tho destination of the cargo was the enemy, the fact that it went first to a neutral made no difference, and. this is a precedent which we can not now upset, and which, considering our possible necessities in the future, we should not break down if we could. At the time of tho Civil War cotton was not used in the manufacture of explosives, as >s the case to-day, yet we made cotton contraband of war, and did not permit anybody to buy cotton of the South, so that widespread suffering prevailed abroad where mill operatives starved in tlit> textile centres of the world. The present, ease hinges upon the theory of ultimate destination which we ourselves then wrote into the fabric of international law, and on this ground Great Britain's position would seein to be secure. . . . Even if Britain's treatment of nou tral shipping is not rigidly in accordance, with every legal definition of blockade, it is certainly overwhelmingly justified from the point of view of intcrnatioua l morality. In his powerful defence of Britain's methods of blockade, Mn. Balfouk declares that it violates no deep ethical instincts; ib is in harmony with tho spirit of international law; it is more regardful of neutral in"tevests than the accepted rules of blockade; it is a reply to an attack which is not only illegal, but immoral ; and if some reply be legitimate and necessary, can a better one be devised 1