(e) That even if some measure of retahation is allowed by the law of nations which may affect neutral commerce, the Order in Councü of February, 1917, is invaüd, because it imposes upon neutrals excessive ïnterferènce, inconvemence and loss.
(f) That in this particular case as respects the Leonora and her cargo the Order in Councü is invahd (1) because the coal was not of enemy origin ; and (2) because no port had been appointed to which the vessel could go for examination.
I shaü deal with the last two heads separately later. As to the others, three main questions arise. First, does the Order in Council comply with, or does it offend against, the guiding principles of the law of nations ? Secondly, are there any précédents or decis&ns in favour of or against its vahdity ? And thirdly, is theré authority for or against it, apart from actual décision or ruling precedent ?
War between powerful States must act and react not only upon the belhgerents themselves, but also upon other States that take no actual part m it, and their subjects. When war is carried on by sea neutrals are naturaüy more affected in relation to their trade than they are bV land warfare. Beüigerents who have had supremacy or superiority upon the waters have insisted progressively and effectively upon theh right to bnng pressure upon theh enemies in proportion to their maritime power. In the development of the rules of international law toucmng tuis right, mevitable confücts have arisen between beüigerents and neutrals as to what kind of acts belhgerents were entitled to commit with the aim of defeating or affhcting then adversaries, however much neutral traders might suffer in the process; and as to what neutrals were entitled to do m the exercise of theh commerce, whatever the results to the belhgerentsmight be. In modern times the two chief points of controversy have related to the carriage of contraband and to trading through blockaded ports. It is not necessary to pursue the interesting history of the development of the rules of international law upon these subjects I only wish to note and extract the principle upon which they are based Lsuivent des observations sur les idees fondamentales de ces deux branches du droit des prises et sur 1'évolution et 1'aggravation gradueües des dispositions concrètes] ....
It is, of course, true that, according to the existing rules of international law, there can be no blockade of neutral ports or coast lines [suivent les passages insérés ci-après dans le § 544 et tendant a démontrer que*» „Kepnsals Orders" équivalent réeüement a un „quasi-blockade at the enemy s maritime trade through adjacent ports."].... It was strenuously argued, however, that the existing limits of the doctrines of blockade and contraband should not, in any circumstances, be extended or transgressed, even if some measures of retahation on the enemy were aüowed . . . . [Pour mhrmer eet argument, Sir Samuel Evans peut seulement invoquer quelques opinions émises ü y a plus d'un siècle, et de peu de valeur, comme oeüe du rédacteur anonyme des „Orders in Council" bntanmqes de 1807, condamnés définitivement par la quasi-unanimité