915, showed both Governments to be professing and
insisting upon a strict adherence to the same principles of
international law, while sharply disagreeing on the question whether
measures taken by Great Britain conformed to those principles.

The United States had objected to certain interferences with neutral
trade Great Britain contemplated under her various Orders in Council.
The legality of these orders the United States contested. Great
Britain was notified by a caveat, sent July 14, 1915, that American
rights assailed by these interferences with trade would be construed
under accepted principles of international law. Hence prize-court
proceedings based on British municipal legislation not in conformity
with such principles would not be recognized as valid by the United
States.

Great Britain defended her course by stating the premise that a
blockade was an allowable expedient in war--which the United States
did not question--and upon that premise reared a structure of argument
which emphasized the wide gap between British and American
interpretations of international law. A blockade being allowable,
Great Britain held that it was equally allowable to make it effective.
If the only way to do so was to extend the blockade to enemy commerce
passing through neutral ports, then such extension was warranted. As
Germany could conduct her commerce through such ports, situated in
contiguous countries, almost as effectively as through her own ports,
a blockade of German ports alone would not be effective. Hence the
Allies asserted the right to widen the blockade to the German commerce
of neutral ports, but sought to distinguish between such commerce and
the legitimate trade of neutrals for the use and benefit of their own
nationals. Moreover, the Allies forebore to apply the rule, formerly
invariable, that ships with cargoes running a blockade were
condemnable.

On the chief point at issue Sir Edward Grey wrote:

"The contention which I understand the United States Government now
puts forward is that if a belligerent is so circumstanced that his
commerce can pass through adjacent neutral ports as easily as through
ports in his own territory, his opponent has no right to interfere and
must restrict his measure of blockade in such a manner as to leave
such avenues of commerce still open to his adversary.

"This is a contention which his Majesty's Government feel unable to
accept and which seems to them unsustained eithe