The Daily News. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1915. AMERICA'S TRADE GRIEVANCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1915, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1915. AMERICA'S TRADE GRIEVANCES.

The worship of tile almighty dollar in the L'nited States affects either directly or indirectly her attitude on all matters of international politics, in addition to being the factor that underlies the existence of Tammanyism and graft. We have seen how materially this fetish operated when Germany was permitted to tarnish American honor by committing diaholieai outrages on American citizens witli impunity, and her excuse that she was a law unto herself was practically' recognised hy President Wilson and his Ministers. America takes up the position that she can dd no wrong, and that anything affecting her dollar-making must he put down. She was, and still is, afraid to offend Germany for the reason that it would mean loss of money. This world war has ,been a veritable gold mine for Ameiioa,

and she is quite prepared, nay, even anxious, to assist the arch-enemy of Britain with everything that can gather in the gold. The painful experience that fell to her lot in the Civil War in connection with the attempted blockade of the Confederates is conveniently forgotten, as are all the exigiences of warfare except such as bring grist to the American mill. Tn this, however, she has to reckon with the Allies, and particularly with Britain. It lias been well known that American firms' have been shipping goods to supply German requirements, but ostensibly supplied to neutrals. It is also known that vessels engaged in this trade have, owing to the close blockade by Britain, been temporarily registered as American—a mere subterfuge to escape capture. A recent Order-in-Council made by the British Government was issued the effect of which was to checkmate such devices, and the operation of that Order is causing something akin to consternation in the. United States, for no vessel ;s allowed to go unchallenged, but must submit to be taken to port and searched, as well as being the subject of a Prize Court if deemed, necessary. In a Note which has just been sent to Britain, America ventilates her grievances in extravagant language, and assumes a tone that ill accords with the weakness of her case. She knows thoroughly well that Britain will not waver, or abate one iota in her determination to cut off supplies of all kinds intended for Cermany, but she is wilfully deficient in vision on this matter, henet her strong, but futile protest. As one of the English papers rightly points out, it is impossible to accept, a rule which allows Germany to blockade us', and prevents us from blockading Germany. If American judgment were not so thoroughly biassed and warped by monetary considerations she would be capabls of taking a far higher and broader view than the carping selfishness 'which characterises the Note. The whole of her complaints may be summarily dismissed as altogether opposed to the logic of events. It is of vital necessity that the blockade against Germany shall be as complete and effective as the skill and resources of Britain and the Allies can ensure. We may regret that America is losing trade, but what is that compared to the immense issues dependent on the war? As a matter of fact, if the trade is legitimate, and not destined to benefit the enemy, there will be no loss, merely a little delay for which compensation can be given. Innocent vessels and innocent cargoes have nothing to fear, but all attempts at subterfuge and re-export will be dealt with as they deserve. It is idle for America tc denounce the stoppage of such risky ventures as illegal and unjustifiable. It is exactly the contrary, and above all it is imperative. There is no blockade of American commercial interests except where those interests are being sought to bo served by injuriously affecting Britain and her Allies. Nor is there any occasion for America to view with alarm the use of force to take vessels to port and subject them to a Prize Court. America was content when Germany said she would pay for destroying the lives of American citizens, while peacefully traversing the seas on unarmed vessels. She should surely, therefore, be content to accept compensation for the mere detention of innocent vessels, but she must put up with the loss of blockade runners, just as Britain had to do in the American Civil War. The United States may "insist" that Britain shall conform to international law and champion the rights of neutrals, but such harsh words will not prevent Britain from maintaining with the utmost rigor that effective blockade against Germany on which ifti much depends. To allow neutrals the opportunity of defeating this firm resolve would be the height of absurdity, and show a weakness that not even the strongest desire to maintain the most cordial relations with the United States would justify.