excerpt
quoted, had freely made innovations in the law of blockade within this
restriction, but regardless of the views or interests of neutrals.
These American innovations in blockade methods, Great Britain
maintained, were of the same general character as those adopted by the
allied powers, and Great Britain, as exemplified in the _Springbok_
case, had assented to them. As to the American contention that there
was a lack of written authority for the British innovations or
extensions of the law of blockade, the absence of such pronouncements
was deemed unessential. Sir Edward Grey considered that the function
of writers on international law was to formulate existing principles
and rules, not to invent or dictate alterations adapting them to
altered circumstances.

So, to sum up, the modifications of the old rules of blockade adopted
were viewed by Great Britain as in accordance with the general
principles on which an acknowledged right of blockade was based. They
were not only held to be justified by the exigencies of the case, but
could be defended as consistent with those general principles which
had been recognized by both governments.

The United States declined to accept the view that seizures and
detentions of American ships and cargoes could justifiably be made by
stretching the principles of international law to fit war conditions
Great Britain confronted, and assailed the legality of the British
tribunals which determined whether such seizures were prizes. Great
Britain had been informed:

"... So far as the interests of American citizens are concerned the
Government of the United States will insist upon their rights under
the principles and rules of international law as hitherto established,
governing neutral trade in time of war, without limitation or
impairment by order in council or other municipal legislation by the
British Government, and will not recognize the validity of prize-court
proceedings taken under restraints imposed by British municipal law in
derogation of the rights of American citizens under international
law."

British prize-court proceedings had been fruitful of bitter grievances
to the State Department from the American merchants affected. Sir
Edward Grey pointed out that American interests had this remedy in
challenging prize-court verdicts:

"It is open to any United States citizen whose claim is before the
prize court to contend that any order in council which may affect his