Germany were concerned she had no cause for complaint.
If, on the other hand, our conduct had been determined solely by
ethical considerations, we would have joined the Allies long before we
did.

The naval superiority of Great Britain made it comparatively easy for
her to stop all direct trade with the enemy in articles contraband of
war, but this was of little avail so long as Germany could import these
articles through the neutral ports of Italy, Holland, and the
Scandinavian countries. Under these circumstances an ordinary blockade
of the German coast would have had little effect. Therefore, no such
blockade was proclaimed by Great Britain. She adopted other methods of
cutting off overseas supplies from Germany. She enlarged the lists of
both absolute and conditional contraband and under the doctrine of
continuous voyage seized articles on both lists bound for Germany
through neutral countries.

As to the right of a belligerent to enlarge the contraband lists there
can be no doubt. Even the Declaration of London, which undertook for
the first time to establish an international classification of
contraband, provided in Article 23 that "articles and materials which
are exclusively used for war may be added to the list of absolute
contraband by means of a notified declaration," and Article 25 provided
that the list of conditional contraband might be enlarged in the same
manner. Under modern conditions of warfare it would seem impossible to
determine in advance what articles are to be treated as contraband.
During the Great War many articles regarded in previous wars as
innocent became indispensable to the carrying on of the war.

Great Britain's application of the doctrine of continuous voyage was
more open to dispute. She assumed that contraband articles shipped to
neutral countries adjacent to Germany and Austria were intended for
them unless proof to the contrary was forthcoming, and she failed to
draw any distinction between absolute and conditional contraband. The
United States protested vigorously against this policy, but the force
of its protest was weakened by the fact that during the Civil War the
American Government had pursued substantially the same policy in regard
to goods shipped by neutrals to Nassau, Havana, Matamoros, and other
ports adjacent to the Confederacy. Prior to the American Civil War
goods could not be seized on any grounds unless bound directly for a
belligerent port. Under the