entails evil consequences not only on the combatants but also on
neutrals. These evils may easily be increased by the interference of a
neutral power with the way in which a third carries on the war to the
disadvantage of the subjects of the interfering power, and by this means
German commerce might be weighted with far heavier losses than a
transitory prohibition of the rice trade in Chinese waters. The measure
in question has for its object the shortening of the war by increasing
the difficulties of the enemy and is a justifiable step in war if
impartially enforced against all neutral ships.'

"Count Caprivi, during a discussion in the German Reichstag on the 4th
of March, 1892, on the subject of the importance of international
protection for private property at sea, made the following statements:
'A country may be dependent for her food or for her raw products upon
her trade. In fact, it may be absolutely necessary to destroy the
enemy's trade.' 'The private introduction of provisions into Paris was
prohibited during the siege, and in the same way a nation would be
justified in preventing the import of food and raw produce.'

"The Government of Great Britain have frankly declared, in concert with
the Government of France, their intention to meet the German attempt to
stop all supplies of every kind from leaving or entering British or
French ports by themselves stopping supplies going to or from Germany.
For this end, the British fleet has instituted a blockade effectively
controlling by cruiser 'cordon' all passage to and from Germany by sea.
The difference between the two policies is, however, that, while our
object is the same as that of Germany, we propose to attain it without
sacrificing neutral ships or non-combatant lives, or inflicting upon
neutrals the damage that must be entailed when a vessel and its cargo
are sunk without notice, examination, or trial.