Prev | Current Page 178 | Next

Various

"New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 April-September, 1915"


If the necessities of the case should seem to render it imperative that
the cordon of blockading vessels be extended across the approaches to
any neighboring neutral port or country, it would seem clear that it
would still be easily practicable to comply with the well-recognized and
reasonable prohibition of international law against the blockading of
neutral ports, by according free admission and exit to all lawful
traffic with neutral ports through the blockading cordon.
This traffic would, of course, include all outward-bound traffic from
the neutral country and all inward-bound traffic to the neutral country,
except contraband in transit to the enemy. Such procedure need not
conflict in any respect with the rights of the belligerent maintaining
the blockade, since the right would remain with the blockading vessels
to visit and search all ships either entering or leaving the neutral
territory which they were in fact, but not of right, investing.
The Government of the United States notes that in the Order in Council
his Majesty's Government give as their reason for entering upon a course
of action, which they are aware is without precedent in modern warfare,
the necessity they conceive themselves to have been placed under to
retaliate upon their enemies for measures of a similar nature, which the
latter have announced it their intention to adopt, and which they have
to some extent adopted, but the Government of the United States,
recalling the principles upon which his Majesty's Government have
hitherto been scrupulous to act, interprets this as merely a reason for
certain extraordinary activities on the part of his Majesty's naval
forces and not as an excuse for or prelude to any unlawful action.


Pages:
166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190