New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 392 pages of information about New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915.

New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 eBook

This eBook from the Gutenberg Project consists of approximately 392 pages of information about New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915.

The Order in Council of the 15th of March would constitute, were its provisions to be actually carried into effect as they stand, a practical assertion of unlimited belligerent rights over neutral commerce within the whole European area and an almost unqualified denial of the sovereign rights of the nations now at peace.

This Government takes it for granted that there can be no question what those rights are.  A nation’s sovereignty over its own ships and citizens under its own flag on the high seas in time of peace is, of course, unlimited, and that sovereignty suffers no diminution in time of war, except in so far as the practice and consent of civilized nations has limited it by the recognition of certain now clearly determined rights which it is conceded may be exercised by nations which are at war.

A belligerent nation has been conceded the right of visit and search, and the right of capture and condemnation, if upon examination a neutral vessel is found to be engaged in unneutral service or to be carrying contraband of war intended for the enemy’s Government or armed forces.

It has been conceded the right to establish and maintain a blockade of an enemy’s ports and coasts and to capture and condemn any vessel taken in trying to break the blockade.  It is even conceded the right to detain and take to its own ports for judicial examination all vessels which it suspects for substantial reasons to be engaged in unneutral or contraband service and to condemn them if the suspicion is sustained.  But such rights, long clearly defined both in doctrine and practice, have hitherto been held to be the only permissible exceptions to the principle of universal equality of sovereignty on the high seas as between belligerents and nations not engaged in war.

It is confidently assumed that his Majesty’s Government will not deny that it is a rule sanctioned by general practice that, even though a blockade should exist and the doctrine of contraband as to unblockaded territory be rigidly enforced, innocent shipments may be freely transported to and from the United States through neutral countries to belligerent territory, without being subject to the penalties of contraband traffic or breach of blockade, much less to detention, requisition, or confiscation.

Moreover, the rules of the Declaration of Paris of 1856—­among them that free ships make free goods—­will hardly at this day be disputed by the signatories of that solemn agreement.

His Majesty’s Government, like the Government of the United States, have often and explicitly held that these rights represent the best usage of warfare in the dealings of belligerents with neutrals at sea.  In this connection I desire to direct attention to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States in the case of the Peterhof, which arose out of the civil war, and to the fact that that opinion was unanimously sustained in the award of the Arbitration Commission

Copyrights
Project Gutenberg
New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 2, May, 1915 from Project Gutenberg. Public domain.