proceed.

This rule cannot, under the first sentence quoted, be applied as to
destination. What, then, is to be done with a cargo of non-contraband
goods detained under the declaration? The same question may be asked as
to conditional contraband cargoes.

The foregoing comments apply to cargoes destined for Germany. Cargoes
coming out of German forts present another problem under the terms of
the declaration. Under the rules governing enemy exports only goods
owned by enemy subjects in enemy bottoms are subject to seizure and
condemnation. Yet by the declaration it is purposed to seize and take
into port all goods of enemy "ownership and origin." The word "origin"
is particularly significant. The origin of goods destined to neutral
territory on neutral ships is not, and never has been, a ground for
forfeiture, except in case a blockade is declared and maintained. What,
then, would the seizure amount to in the present case except to delay
the delivery of the goods? The declaration does not indicate what
disposition would be made of such cargoes if owned by a neutral or if
owned by an enemy subject. Would a different rule be applied according
to ownership? If so, upon what principles of international law would it
rest? And upon what rule, if no blockade is declared and maintained,
could the cargo of a neutral ship sailing out of a German port be
condemned? If it is not condemned, what other legal course is there but
to release it?

While this Government is fully alive to the possibility that the methods
of modern naval warfare, particularly in the use of submarines for both
defensive and offensive operations, may make the former means of
maintaining a blockade a physical impossibility, it feels that it can be