Nelson's history of the war. Vol. XI., The struggle for the Dvina, and the great invasion of Serbia

APPENDIX II. 177

tions to the British delegates to the London Conference in 1908 :(—

“Tt is exceedingly doubtful whether the decision of the Supreme Court was in reality meant to cover a case of blockade - running in which no question of contraband arose. Certainly, if such was the intention, the decision would pro tanto be in conflict with the practice of the British Courts. His Majesty's Government sees no reason for departing from that practice, and you should endeavour to obtain general recognition of its correctness.”

It may be pointed out also that the circumstances surrounding the Springbok case were essentially different from those of the present day to which the rule laid down in that case is sought to be applied. When the Springbok case arose the ports of the Confederate States were effectively blockaded by the naval forces of the United States, though no neutral ports were closed and a continuous voyage through a neutral port required an all-sea voyage terminating in an attempt to pass the blockading squadron.

BRITISH PRIZE COURTS.

25. Third : It appears to be the position of Great Britain that, if, as the United States alleges, American citizens or American interests are directly and adversely affected by the British policies of contraband and non-intercourse, resulting in interference with ships and cargoes, they should seek redress in the Prize Courts which the British Government have established, and that, pending the exhaustion of such legal remedies with the result of a denial of justice, the British Government “ cannot continue to deal through the diplomatic channels with the individual cases.”

26. Tt is declared that this was the course followed by the United States during the American Civil War and the Spanish War, and that both countries have supported the practice by

allowing their Prize Court decisions, when shown to be unjust XI. 12