orality which have been described above which Germany began to adopt at
the very outset of the war and the effects of which have been constantly
accumulating."

American Ambassador, London.

IV.

AMERICAN INQUIRY ON REPRISAL METHOD.

_The American Government on March 5 transmitted identic messages of
inquiry to the Ambassadors at London and Paris inquiring from both
England and France how the declarations in the Anglo-French note
proclaiming an embargo on all commerce between Germany and neutral
countries were to be carried into effect. The message to London was as
follows:_

WASHINGTON, March 5, 1915.

In regard to the recent communications received from the British and
French Governments concerning restraints upon commerce with Germany,
please communicate with the British Foreign Office in the sense
following:

The difficulty of determining action upon the British and French
declarations of intended retaliation upon commerce with Germany lies in
the nature of the proposed measures in their relation to commerce by
neutrals.

While it appears that the intention is to interfere with and take into
custody all ships, both outgoing and incoming, trading with Germany,
which is in effect a blockade of German ports, the rule of blockade that
a ship attempting to enter or leave a German port, regardless of the
character of its cargo, may be condemned is not asserted.

The language of the declaration is "the British and French Governments
will, therefore, hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships
carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It
is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would
otherwise be liable to condemnation."

The first sentence claims a right pertaining only to a state of
blockade. The last sentence proposes a treatment of ships and cargoes as
if no blockade existed. The two together present a proposed course of
action previously unknown to international law.

As a consequence neutrals have no standard by which to measure their
rights or to avoid danger to their ships and cargoes. The paradoxical
situation thus created should be changed and the declaring powers ought
to assert whether they rely upon the rules governing a blockade or the
rules applicable when no blockade exists.

The declaration presents other perplexities. The last sentence quoted
indicates that the rules of contraband are to be applied to cargoes
detained. The ru