UNITED STATES.

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1915, Page 5

UNITED STATES.

THE NOTE TO BRITAIN. INTERFERENCE WITH TRADE. A REAL YAXK.EE MESSAGJS. London, Nov. 7. An American Nolo on the interference with trade reminds the British Government that it promised to minimise the inconvenience, but regrets that it has not done so. Instead, interferences are increasingly vexatious. There are three complaints. Firstly the taking of vessels to port for search. The leading Powers before the war did not contemplate tliis practice, which results in innocent vessels and cargoes being detained on mere suspicion and this causes America much loss of trade. Americans do not accept the British presumption that where imports to an enemy's neutral neighbours increase, the goods are intended for re-export to that enemy. This presumption is fundamentally unjust and offers very great, opportunities for abuse. America denounces as illegal and unjustifiable the attempt to interfere with trade, because a belligerent suspects the imports are intended to replace goods sold to an enemy. That is a matter with which a neutral vendor is not concerned.

Secondly, concerning the blockade of American commercial 'interests. This has been hampered by new consignment corporations in neutral countries, Americans formerly were inclined to accept the so-called blockade under the Oriier-in-Council issue on March 11, but in the circumstances now developed, they cannot longer permit it to remain unchanged. The blockade, is neither effective nor impartial, because Scandinavia continues to trade with Germany. Finally, there is no better settled.principle of the law of the nations than that forbidding the blockade of neutral ports. The reasons for the blockade cannot be regarded a 9 legal. Thirdly.-—-Prize courts. These are fettered by restrictions contravening international law. Moreover, prize courts cannot repair injury due to the delay and expense in bringing the vessel to port and the fear of interfering. America views with alarm the British attempt to use illegal force to bring neutral vessels to port, thereafter subjecting them to British international law. The Note concludes: "America cannot complacently suffer further subordination of its rights and interests on the. plea that the exceptional geographical position of the British enemy requires or justifies illegal practice. America insists that Britain shall conform to international law, and unhesitatingly assumes the task of championing the rights of neutrals, to which it will impartially devote its energies."

BRITISH PRESS CRTICISM. WHOLLY CONDEMNATORY. Received Nov. 8, 0.5 p.m. London, Nov. 8. The Daily Chronicle says that it is impossible to expect Britain to accept a rule which allows Germany to blockade us and prevents us blockading her. America's Xote does not put a pistol to our heads, but it says firmly, almost harshly, that America will not acquiesce in our policy and will continue strong protests. Tlie Note points to a continuance of diplomatic difficulties between Washington and London which cannot possibly be diminished without serious modification of the American attitude.

The Daily Telegraph says that (lie Note is disappointing. Part of our task is to make Germany feel that our navy holds her by the throat. In this general resolve we certainly shall not waver. We shall do everything possible to lessen the disadvantage to neutrals, but the great end of our activity must be secured, whatever the cost. Received Nov. S, 9.5 p.m. London, Nov. 8. The Times says that Americans will feel that the Xote is not altogether worthy of the better traditions of the Republic. It goes at great length into technicalities, and nowhere rises to broad views of the larger issues of this world war. It overlooks the activities of the British submarines in the Baltic, which is considerably stronger than was the American position when America placed the Confederate coast under a paper blockade. The extravagant character of the language in the Note was doubtless due to the exigiences of American domestic polities. The Daily Mail says that the answer to President Wilson should be a very strong one, namely, thqt the Orders-in-Council were a reply to the Germans' repudiation of all international law and doctrines which we put into practice and which are the essence of those formulated by the American courts during the Civil War. Our submarines in the Baltic have already met with most of the difficulties President Wilson raises.