Great Britain

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVII, Issue 81, 4 August 1915, Page 6

Great Britain

REPLY TO AMERICA. BRITISH WAR OFFICE STATES'' •„ " MENT. United Press Association. (Received 1.50‘ p.m.) London, August 3. / The Foreign Office publishes Sir ( Edward Gref s xriply to America ah follows:, Mr Page on July 17 drew gt|entiO|i to the detention of the. .steamer Neches from 1 Rotterdam hound: to America; instead, American owners 'had the right to bring nut', goods to Molln'ud, even though the, gPQds may originally cotufe from belligerent country. Apparently, I this incident led to Sir Edward Grey s request to Mr Lansing, cabled on July 27, to delay the publication of ther British Note. The latter, dated July j 23. stated that in view of the shocking violation of the principles of civi-.j Used warfare' of which Germany was-/ guilty, it was inciunbeht on the Al-, ,Hes to take 'every Step to overcome it. Britain Was Unable to accept the Tinted States’ contention that if a belligerent was so circumstanced that his commerce can pass through adjacent neutral ports,, his opponent had no right to interfere. Britain was unable to admit that a belligerent violates the fundamentals of. jrir ( ternational law by applying a block-, ade to cut. off the' enemy's commerce through neutral countries, if such application only means making, the blockade effective. Sir EdwaVd Grey points out that Rotterdam is the nearest outlet for some of Germany’s industrial districts, and as a counterpoise to freedom wherewith one belligfefent may send commerce > across a neutral country : without ‘ compromis-j lng v its neutrality, ! the other belligerent may fairly claim to intercept it, either before reaching or after leaving the neutral provided he proves it is enemy; cmßihierc'e.' | The Note continued: Britain was interfering with -no good k which she was 1 hot entitled to interfere with by blockade. If Gerriiiiny’s geographical position was such ‘that commerce passer, through her own ’ports',' and if we fyere successful in distiriguiiihirig between the commerce of neutrals arid:, of eriemy countries, thrire tvo'tild 'not. be ariy substantial interference with the trade of neut Val port’s except where coristituted ports gave access and exit to eriemy territory. were many neutral ports which ft would he mere riffectittion to regard as offering facilities only for the com-,, mei ce of a neutral country in which j the port was situated. It was a_ fundamental principle, and universal- ( ly recognised, that a belligerent by a blockade was entitled to effectively cut off the enemy's commerce. Brit-1 arri'Vas uniflfl#, eheiriibre/Bto Accept the United States limitation, s Sir Edward Gi%v wnting on the. 30th and referring'to the Neches, Says j that the Imperial Governriierif was unaware', .except from the published coiresponde'rice between the Gritted States and G’ermafty, what was the eX-: tent of the reparation claimed from Germaily by the neutrals for the loss: of ships, lives, and cargoes,' nor how far these acts' write protested against. ■; He adds; “While these acts of Germany continue, it seems neither reasonable or just that Britain should be pressed, to abandon rights claimed in the Nt)te of the 23rd; arid allow German goods to pass freely in waters effectively patrolled by British warships. The Government is prepared to deal considerately with the Neches if she found that the hardships inflicted on neutral 'oilmens concluded with the legal remedies in the Washington message cabled on the 27th.”