352 The "Submarine Blockade." The "décret" itself declares: "AU goods belonging to Germans, coming from Germany, or going to Germany, which have left port after the 13th of March, are to be detained. Territory occupied by Germans is to be considered the same as German territory. All those goods which bear German trade-marks, or are produced or harvested in Germany, or whose port of embarkation is German territory, are to be regarded as goods emanating from Germany. This rule, however, does not apply to goods concerning which a neutral is able to prove that he imported them into a neutral country before the 13th of March, or that he has acquired them in good faith as property before the 13th of March. Wares will be considered as destined for Germany when the accompanying papers do not prove the final conclusive destination to be a neutral land. Neutral ships on which the goods described above are found are to be taken into French or allied ports, and the wares unloaded, unless the contrary is deemed expedient. The ship is then to be discharged as free and all wares which are recognized as German property, are to be sold or seized, the proceeds to be paid to the owner only after the conclusion of peace. Goods belonging to neutrals and coming from Germany remain at the disposition of the neutral owner, in order to be returned to the port of origin, within a certain period, after the expiration of which they are to be sold for the account of the owner. 1 The same procedure is to be followed with goods that belong to neutrals and are consigned to Germany. The Minister of Marine may, as an exception, grant the transit of goods which are consigned to a particular neutral country 1 The "Kôlnische Zeitung" received the following from Christiania: "The Foreign Office here learns officially from London: The Christiania steamer "Bravo," bound from Norway to San Francisco, put into Cardiff to coal, and was there compelled to unload 1192 gallons of fruit-juice, which had been taken aboard at Bremen. That is the first case in which England has seized German export goods which were not contraband. In England, however, a great outcry was raised because a German U-boat had sunk a Dutch steamer which carried a cargo of oranges for England!"
The "Submarine Blockade." 353 or which originate in this country. The provisions with regard to contraband remain in force. The Prize Court will decide the question as to whether the captured goods belong to Germans, are consigned to Germany or originate in Germany." 1 ' 2 1 The "Daily Telegraph" reports as follows from "Washington under date of the 8th of March: "Sir Cecil Spring-Rice states that the British Government has arrived at the following conclusions with regard to cotton destined for neutral ports : i. Cotton, which has been sold before the 2nd of March and meant for export is to be allowed to pass, or in case of seizure is to be purchased at the selling price, in case the vessels have not left port after the 31st of March. 2. The same holds good for cotton which has been insured before the 3rd of March, in case it has not been embarked after the 16th of March. 3. All cotton freights, which desire to avail themselves of the regulations above, must be notified before their departure and provided with certificates by consular authorities and by other officials provided therefor by the government. Shipments to enemy ports will not be allowed to pass." The last provision is an open breach of the law of nations and a flagrant outrage upon the sovereign rights of the Union. 2 It is best, when considering the entire disregard of universal naval laws by the Triple Entente, to note what a contrast the behavior of another neutral state offers to that of the United States: On the 22nd of March, 1915, the Minister for Foreign Affairs gave out to the Second Chamber the contents of the Dutch Note of the 19th of March. It ran in part as follows: "The government of the Netherlands will pass no judgment as to the legality of the measures adopted by the warring powers. . But it is the duty of the Netherlands, as a neutral power, to raise its voice against these measures, in so far as they violate the recognized principles of the rights of neutrals. Already at the beginning of the war, the Dutch Government protested in the interests of its rights as a neutral power and in the interests of international law against every curtailment of the rights of neutrals by the warring powers. It cannot alter its position in respect to the present measures, since these ignore the great principle of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, whereby neutral and enemy goods, with the exception of contraband, are not subject to seizure, so long as they are under the protection of a neutral flag. With the settingaside of this principle the British ordinance intended that the British fleet should be empowered to enforce measures of compulsion, not only against the private property of the enemy, even when not contraband, but also against the goods of neutrals, when it was conjectured that these were of enemy origin or were intended for the enemy. The definition of the British order guarantees a liberal interpretation of the measure with respect to neutral goods, but without any fixed rule which could serve to protect the interests of sea-going ships and commerce. Article 8 allows the possibility of a relaxation of the Muller, Who are the Huns? 23