Teolon
Y 405
.1oiVisƐ In Luane) ano fTOMA
„GIRI,EI ‚v#dodol zrodzneli
best sombanquetteo add at somereher die ZW
at binger nut İm Jemontovaŭ laine£eð
alderramali adt
mitte side movied well to LeX .▲ .L .ni 101 skom la trangisin och♪ cắt kw noMO DO? LOJAI
•
bertIA - IM to sasažna seld ymkvlevad om
molimin e ban xeY
To ynequal ban zəkati .amnunil Te amo¿žso irm -ročni ad♪ to Joejdwa Lazomną odz
bên theo lệ
abert lortuen díž kW ZABALENGO vað dek‡k¶l náð 2a dug and co norman?« anti ar noitsïsbianeo doua movis etteal I gnedigselt regnerad? ynkasaq 10? •Idaliove mokð krosíðan boðhull nás žo volv ni oldiɛnog mod an arl on yalnimitim Ya waku a 5329 .gnodamali ni neki në Lamm
si.lt ddiw neizvennes së sakta vam žudė no¿duit? you alɗicanq -:revod Lainold0 exit at plainant otara od dood 32 ániát I tooįdara
alice „Jauð saman að sto
of
If n
of Josidue Jam si znodzaaki Ye ymo[e© ad? starosné zidanoq obrst atoɔ elider bas saan dgid sit ne zmianaq tasd
Liletutan era oniwsodite ze sidno pi zmenizzell, dzwonić metras- Here you no sell ad♪ Te Testnon ham glibxonano ads of doe¿dua Dud ja „cesimong mat nå mingit sti esiosare of senso di no 1-1 se
bao ao Boyung imɑ nài vớt ářed „Jmemrteveð duldisë sad amit
sa el,coutwenq adê ni smoltszkids Wise:¿ odt siin guiqusa ai ni aliisnog od yam na na? on abast Laursac akodalom oft sưQİYM oot caileer fare did edt mo nhin ve mat tu ban Ji Jne mrzovoŬ duljil sdź yd becauɑamı yolluq adź zebrar due and noqu trechwoni el di noidsaloonq yd bæ Ibræð) al embro boule ayniInsh IIn ezinkturoa yldsinde od drearisvoð Leinol
Vanu
37
may have relation to enemy firms or enemy business. Admitting all this, however, does not in my opnion justify the peremptory not to Bay arbitrary action of the Colonial Government in cases of this
sort under consideration
The first point at issue seems to be that as to the burden of proof, that is, as to whether or not it is incumbent upon neutral firms to prove their business is neutral or whether it is incumbent upon the imperial and colonial governments to prove that any particular business or any particular transaction is non- -neutral. So far as I am able to ascertain there is no direct authority covering this subject. This phase of the general subject of interference with neutral trade was the subject of issue and correspondence between the British and American govern- -ants immediately after the opening of the war. In the discussion of the British policy with respect to cargoes passing between neutral ports and in the peaceful pursuit of lawful commerce which was contained in the instructions of the Department of State to Ambassader Page and presented to the British Government it was declared: "It is needless to point out to His Majesty's Government usually the champion of the freedom of the seas and the rights of trade, that peace, not war, is the normal relation between nations and that the commerce between countries which are not belligerents should not be interfered with by those at was unless such inter- -ference is manifestly an imperative necessity to protect their national safety, and then only to the extent that it is a necessity". The United States in this note spoke of the presumption of innocent use of goods destined to neutral territory and said further that it could not permit "American ships or American cargoes to be taken into British ports and there detained for the purpose of searching generally for evidence of contraband or upon presumptions created by special municipal enactments which are clearly at variance with international law and practice". In his reply to this statement the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs recognised that there should be no interference in dealing with trade between neutrals unless such interference is necessary
to