University of South Carolina Libraries
vNrttt* wit.* X4YI- im?,. er srtA^n #f>n tNTtittVfcn ence WlTIrrmTRADK. l aten Vwtr no London Covotv Trade situation siiuv Bcgliuiing of War und Staufs that This Country Will Not flutitttit m? Cu bailment of IUsftt*--1iiel?fs That KstunllMhcd ItaPx of lof. nu?tloi,nl Lm\y ho Oh wttHt ny mglanct Washington. Nov. 7.?The Halted State* In Its latest note to Great Britain, made public here today, cov trlnK exhaustively British Interference With American trade since the begin? ning of the European war, declares that the so-called blockade instituted by the allies against enemy countries on March 11 is "ineffective, illegal and Indefinable." Notice la served that the American government "can not submit to the curtailment of its neutral rights," and it can not "with complacence sufter further subordina? tion of its rights and interests." Ambassador Page, to whom the note was aent by special messenger for delivery to the London foreign office, was Instructed by Secretary Lansing "to impress most earnestly" upon the British government that the United States "must insist that the relations between It and his majesty's govern? ment be governed, not by a policy of expediency but by those established rulea of International conduct to which Great Britain In the past has held the latter nation was a belligerent engag? ed In a struggle for national exist? ence." Declaring the United States "un beuitatlngly assumes" the task of championing the Integrity of neutral rights, the note proclaims that the American government will devote its energies to the task, exercising alwaya an Impartial attitude The, note, nearly 15,000 words in length, was mdae public by agreement between the state department and the British fbreikn office. It carries with it a voluminous appendix, giving the text of the American naval instruc? tions Issued in 1XG2 and a summary and table showing hundreds of vesseln detained by British authorities since the beginning of the present war. The body of the note is divided into 35 points, dealing with all phases Of fl>? oontroh^ i r-. and di ..cations, pi lor to, an wei: as ?fur, -he eocjglatd blockade wan in? stil*.fed, and aaaonacas tt it .< sepa? rate communication will be sent soon <H particularly with uu> pro? priety and r'ght of the British gov? ernment ro incTuere \n their list or contraband of war certain articles which have been so Included." Pn conclusion, after an argument on the law and facts. Secretary Lan? sing say a: "I believe It has been conclusively shown that the methods sought to be employed by Qr^t Britain to obtain and us evidence of enemy destination of cargoes bound for neutral ports and to Impose i ontraband character upon such cargoes are without Justi? fication; thac the blockade, upon whioh such methods are partly found? ed. Is Ineffective, illegal and inde? fensible; that the Judicial procedure offered as a means of reparation for an International injury is inherently defective for the purpose; and that In many oases Jurisdiction is asserted in violation of tb.> law- of nations. The United States, therefore, can not submit to the curtailment of its neutral rights by these measures, which are admittedly retaliatory, and therefore illegal, In conception and In nature, and Intended to punish the enemies of Oreat Britain for alleged illegalities on their part. The United States might not he in a position to object to them If its Interests and the Interests of all neutrals were un? affected by them, but, being affected. It can not with complacence suffer further subordination of Its rights and Interests to the plea that tho excep? tional geographic position of the ene? mies of Oreat Britain require or Justify oppressive lllgeal practices. "The government of the United States, therefore, desires to impress most earnestly upon bis majesty's government that It must in.slst that the relations between It and bis ma? jesty's government bo governed, not by a policy of expediency, but by those established rules of Interna? tional conduct upon which (ireut Brit? ain In th? punt has held the United States to account when Urn latter na ) tlon waa a belligerent engaged In a struggle for national existence. It la of the highest Importance to neutrals not only of the present day but of the future that the principle* <?f in? ternational right B? maintained un Impaired "This task of rhnmpbmlng the In? tegrity of neutral rights, which h;t\< receded the sanction of the clvlll/ed world against the lawlen* conduct of belligerents arising out of tin bitter ttesa of the krr?at conflict which Is now wasting the on un tries of Rampe, tho United states unhesitatingly assumes, and to the accomplishment of that task It will devote its energies, e\. i Clstng always that impartiality which [ from the outbreak of the war It has -sought t?'exercise \n Irs relations'with the warring nations." The note if dated October 21 and acknowledges the notes of the British government dateil January 7. Febru ary 10, June IS, July M, July 31 (tko), August 13, and a note vorbah of the British embassy of August ?5, all of which relate to restrictions upon American commerce. The United States says at the outset that It has delayed answering these notes in the hope that the announced pur? pose of Great Britain "to exercise their belligerent right with every pos? sible consideration for the interests of neutrals" and of causing "the least .possible amount of Inconvenience to persons engaged in legitimate trade" would in practice not unjustifiably in? fringe upon the neutral rights of 'American Citizens. "It is therefore a matter of regret," says the note, "that this hope has not been realizeJ, but that on the con? trary interferences with American ships and cargoes destined in good 'faith to neutral ports and lawfully entitled to proceed have become In? creasingly vexatious, causing Ameri? can ship owners and American mer? chants to complain to this govern? ment of the failure to take steps to 'prevent any exercise of belligerent power in contravention of their just tifchts. As the measures complained of proceed directly from orders issued1 by the British government are execut? ed by British authorities and arouse a reasonable apprehension that, if not resisted, they may bo carried to an extent even more injurious to Ameri? can Interests this government directs the attention of his majesty's govern? ment to the following considerations." ' Here follow In numbered para? graphs the points made by the United States. Summarized they are: 1. The statistics presented by Great Britain to prove an increase rather than a decrease in American trade "fail to take into account the in? creased price of commodities result? ing from a state of war or to make any allowance for the diminution in the volume of trade which the neu? tral countries in Europe previously had with the nations at war." 2. Detentions by Great Britain have not been 'uniformly based on proofs obtained at the time of seizure, but many vessels have been detained while search was mado for evidence." T*ie questions has neen one of"evl donce to support the belief of? in nary QfjjOl ? bar? suspicion of? enemy daetinatloii or oot i&Tohauy of enemy ofltin of the goods' Involved." 6. Attention is directed with regard to search of neutral vessels at sea to the instructions issued to the naval commanders of the United States, Oreat Britain, Russia, Japan, Spain, Germany and France from 188S to the beginning of the present war to show "that search In port was not contem? plated by the government of any of these countries." j 4. An examination of tho opinion of the most eminent text writers on the laws of nations shows "that they give practically no consideration to the question of search in port outside | of examination In the course of regu? lar prize court proceedings." 5. Answering the assertion of Great Britain that the position of the United States in relation of search at sea is inconsistent with Its practice during the Civil War, the note says this Is based upon a "misconception." A careful search of the records "shows conclusively that there were no in? stances when vessols were brought into port for search prior to institut? ing prize court proceedings," and that 'captures were not made upon other grounds than evidence found on the ship under investigation, and not upon circumstances ascertained from external sources. It Is here that Secretary Irnsing appends a copy of the instructions issued to American 'Uaval? ofllcers on August 18, 1802. 6. In answer to the British con? tention that conditions relating to the slzo and seaworthiness of modern car? riers Justify bringing vessels into port, there is Sited the report of a board of United States naval exports, just made, In which It Is declared, that It is not necessary to remove "every package of a ship's cargo" to establish the character and nature of her trade, that the facilities for boarding and Inspection of modern ships are in fact greater than in former times, and that to permit ships to be taken Into port "would be a direct aid to the belligerents concerned In that it would release a belligerent vessel ov erhauling the neutral from its duty of search and ?Sj It free for further belligerent oper atb 'is" 7, 8 and 9, These points deal with new procedures in the prise courts, the effect of which the United Btatei complains hi "to subject traders to risk of ions, delay and expense so great and so burdensome as to practlcall) de? stroy much of the export trad*' of the Untted State? to neutral countries of Kurops." Ii and 11. These discuss the ques? tion of the burden of proof as to the noncontrahand of goods consigned ?to order," the United States urging that none of the cases oltsd by Gnat Britain proves that the burden of proof can rightly be made to rest upon the claimants ? ? 12. The greatly increased imports of neutral countries adjoining Great BHtAltl'l enemies "can not be accept? ed as laying down a just or legal rule of evidence" that commodities are des? tined for reexportation to the bellig? erents. Such a rule, it is argued, "offers too great opportunity for abuse by the belligerents" and is opposed "to those fundamental principles of justice which are the foundation of the jurisprudence of the United States and Great Britain." IS; Attention is directed to the fact that GVeat Britain admits that her exports to neutral Counrics have also materially increased since the present war began. "Thus Great Britain," says the note, "concededly shares in cre? ating a condition which is relied upon as a sufficient grour.d to justify the interception of American goods des? Unfed to neutral European ports. If British exports to those ports should be still further increased, it is obvious j that, under the rule of evidence con- j tended for by the British government, j the presumption of enemy destination *coultl be applied to a greater number Of American cargoes, and American trade would suffer to the extent that 'British trade benefited by the increase Great Britain can not expect the United States to submit to such-mani? fest injustice or to permit the rights :of its Citizens to be so seriously im? paired. "* 14. Whatever may be the conjec? tural conclusions drawn from trade statistics, the United States "maintains the right to sell goods into the gen? eral stock of a neutral country, and denounces as illegal and unjustifiable ;any attempt of a belligerent to inter? fere with that right on the ground that it suspects th.it the previous sup? ply of such goods in the neutral coun? try which the imports renew or re? place has been sold to an enemy. That Is a matter with which the heutral vendor has no concern and which can in no way affect his rights of trade. Moreover, even if goods listed as con? ditional contraband are destined to an enemy country through a neutral county, that fact is not in Itself suffi? cient to justify their seizure." 15. In view of these considerations the. United States announces that it has no other course but "to contest seizures of vessels at sea upon con? jectural suspicion and the practice of bringing1 them Into dOM for fho pur pose, by seaiH hi ofr otherwise* of ob?| talnlhg evidence," and Adds that "re lyfttg upon the regard of tint British government 1 ? rat ilrlliciptoi of jus? tice so frequently and uniformly mani? fested prior to the present war, this government anticipates that the British government will instruct their officers to refrain from these vexa tioui and Illegal practices." K. Directing particular attention to the socalled "blockade measures" ImpoHed by the order <n Council of March 11, the British note of July 23 last is cited to confirm the Inten? tion "to establish a blockade." After i over six months' application of the 'blockade order, the note says, "the experience of Amcerican citizens has [covinced the government of the iUnlted States that Groat Britain Has Jeen unsuccessful in her efforts to dis? tinguish between enemy and neutral trade." 17. The practice of requiring a con? signor to prove that his shipments are inot bound to an enemy of Great Brit? ain even when articles are ort the em? bargo list of the neutral country to i\vhich they are destined is character? ized as "harassing to neutral traders." { 18. While the United States govern? ment "was at first inclined to view with leniency the British measures which were termed in the correspond? ence but not in the order In council of March 11 "a blockade," because of the assurances of the British govern? ment that inconvenience to neutral 'trade would be minimized by the dis? cretion left to the courts in the appli? cation of the order in council and by 'the instructions which It was said would lie Issued to the administrative and othbr authorities hav ing to do with the execution of the socalled "blockade" measures, this government is now forced to the realisation that its expectations! which were fully set forth in its note of March 30, were baaed on a misconception of the in? tentions of the British government. Desiring to avoid controversy and in the expectation that the administra? tion of the order in council would conform to the established rules of International law, this government has until now reserved the question of the actual validity of the order in c ouncil of March I 1, in BO far as it is considered by the government of Great Britain to establish a block? ade within the meaning of that term as understood in Hie law ami prac? tices of nations'; 'um in the olrcum? stances now developed it fools thai if can no longor permit the validity ? f the alleged blockade to remain um ,cba llenged;" 1'.'. pointing out that in ncoordaftoc with the Declaration of Paris in I85il the effectiveness of a blockade Is "manifestly a nuostion of fait," the United Htates snys it is "oommon knowledge that the German coasts are open to trade with the Scandi? navian countries-;" Thte recent plac? ing of cotton on the British list of contraband is spoken of as making it appear "that the British government themselves have been forced to the conclusion that the blockade is inef? fective to prevent shipments of cotton from reaching their enemies, or else thai they are doubtful as to the legal? ity of the form of blockade which they have sought to maintain." 20. Decisions are cited to show that it is an essential principle, universally accepted, that a blockade must apply impartially to the ships of all nations, and it is added that "if belligerents themselves trade with blockaded ports," the principle in the past has been that they can not be regarded as effectively blockaded. These de? cisions are referred to "since it is a matter of common knowledge that Great Britain exports and reexports large quantities of merchandise to Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Hol? land, whose ports, so far as Ameri? can commerce is concerned, she re? garded as blockaded." 21. The principles of the laws of nations which forbid the blockade of neutral ports in time of war, em? bodied in that port of the declaration of London adopted by Great Britain as to blockade, are discussed and several decisions of the British prize courts prior to the present war are well as the Matamoras cases in the 'American Civil war are recalled to support the contention of the United States. 22. Measured by "the three univer? sally conceded tests the present Brit? ish measures can not be regarded as constituting a blockade, in law, in practice or in effect." 23. Formal notice is given that the "blockade" which Great Britain "claims to have instituted under the order in council of March 11 can not be recognized as a legal blockade by the United States." 24. The British view of the famous Springbox case before the outbreak lot the present war is cited to sup? port the American contentions. 25 to 35 inclusive. These deal ex? haustively with the modes of judicial redress for citizens of neutral coun? tries, and reach certain general con? clusions. "The goverrvmont of the United States," the note says, "has viewed with surprise and concern the attemnt of bio m'liopfvv. nro.'prr ?v>ovit to confer* upon i.'>? British prise tu urt?|; jurisdiction i?y the illegal exercise of; force in order that fliese courts ran) j arol> to v easels sjid cargoes of neutral! nationalities^ seised on the mgn seas, municipal laws and orders which can oniy rightfully be enforclble within the territorial waters of Great Britain or against vessels of British nationality when on the high seas.The United States government feels that it can not reasonably he expected to advise its citizens to seek redress he Yore tribunals which are in its opin? ion unauthorized by the unrestricted application of international law to grant reparation, nor to refrain from presenting their claims directly to the British government through diplo? matic channels." Secretary Lansing moreover denies In this connection that the charges, such as pilotage, wharfage, unloading costs, etc., against a detained vessel must be paid by the claimants, and adds that the United States is "loathe to believe that such ungenerous treat? ment will continue to be accorded American citizens." Any waivers of indemnity exacted from American citizens "under such conditions of dcress," it is declared, can not pre? clude them from subsequently obtain? ing redress through diplomatic chan? nels. A KUMTKIl MAN'S EXPERIENCE. Results Tell the Tale?Van You Doubt the Evidence of This Sumter Citi? zen. C. H. James, salesman, 304 Council St., Sumter, says: "I was afflicted with backache and sharp pains through my loins. 1 could not rest well. Mornings I was so lame that I could hardly dress. If I straighten-! ed quickly after stooping, shaVp pains shot through my back. The kidney se? cretions were unnatural, and Ailed with .sediment, and l didn't have much control over them. When a friend tohl me about Doan's Kidney Pills 1 gave them :i trial, and they strengthened my kidneys. (State? ment given Mnrch 17. mas.) On January 11, 1916, Mr. James said: "i gladly confirm my former endorsement of Doan's Kidney Pills, I always recommend them t?? anyone 1 hear complaining of kidney trou? ble." Price BOe., at all dealers. Don't '.'imply ask for a kidney remedy?get I Doan's Kidney Pills- the same that Mr. .lames hau. Foster-Mllburn Co. Props., Buffalo, N. V. 7 Admiral ( ap ile Retired. Amsterdam, Nov. 5.- Admiral Ca pelle, n favorite of Admiral von Tlr j pit/ and director of the nasal admin Istratloti has been retired un half pay The National Bank of South Carolina. RESOURCES $825,000.00 <M?'P MP-iil I . ??UHIJ ?? ? ? I ?????I-? I I' !? I-JHIIIIM" 1IW Largest Bank in Eastern South Carolina See our last report. Your neighbor's bank. Why not yours. It pays to patronize. C. G. ROWLAND, President G. L WARREN, Cashier A Business Luxury. A Checking Account is indeed a business necessity; I and he who tries to get along without one is at a great disadvantage. , It is not required that a person should have a large X bulk of business in order to open an account J| Professional men, farmers, and even many women, 4 are running checking accounts. If you have never Jf done business in this way, and are not familiar with J{ the plan, come to us and we will get you started. <? 3 The Vir?t National Bank jj ? t GREAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN ? MADE i In business methods, and this | I bank has kept pace with them, j .While conservative in the in- j j interest of SAFETY, our equip- \ I ment and business methods |are [ modern?let us do business to- I gether to our mutual advantage. I Capital - - $200,000 1 Surplus - - |50,000 [ The National Bank of [ Sumter, ESTABLISHED 1889 "SAFEST FOR YOUR SAVINGS" Real Estate For Sale. Farms Near Town: HO acres, :i miles from town on main public road; 2 horse farm open, 4 room dwelling, one tenant bowr, good Imm, stables, ?nods, Aiming weft, side track In few hundred yards, (iood school and church near. (>."> acres, S miles from town on main public road, 19 acres free of stumps, 1 room house, barns and Btabiee, near railroad; school and cbui'ch. 71? acivs, :$ miles from town on public road, one horse farm in* cultivation, 1 mom house, bam and stables; fruit trees; near rail? road, school and church. 121 acres, 2 1-2 miles from town, on public road, 2 1-2 horse farm o|mmi, wood enough to pay for It; ."> room dwelling; one ten? ant hi use, barns and stables, near school. Farms in Clarendon County: 120 acres, two miles from Pinewood, unimproved, for sole cheap. 217 acres, two ami H hall' miles from Pinewood, two hor?o farm open, a lot ol' good timcbr. Otto house. Good land and u proposition that will make money lor some one who will dcxclop. For sale cheap. C. P. Osteen, ^