The papers of Monday published a statement by Mr. Balfour,
intended for circulation in the United States, as to the justification of our blockade of Germany. Mr. Balfour answers first the objection that the policy of the Allies is not Jeri a breach of international law because it is a less grievous breach than Germany has committed. The objection, he says, depends for its force rather on the letter of the law than on its spirit. Another objection which Mr. Balfour meets is that the crime of one party does not justify the other in modifying his policy. The objection, he says, is based upon a confusion between international morality, the obligation of which is absolute, and international law, the obligation of which is conditional on its observance by both parties. This, he says, is obviously true, because otherwise the advantage would always lie with the unscrupulous. The statement is very interesting, like everything which Mr. Balfour writes. If we made a criticism, however, it would be that where morality transcends international legality it is beside the mark to try our action at some length by legal tests. Mr. Balfour shows that our blockade is more considerate to neutrals than an ordinary blockade, and the plain, broad fact is that it cannot be illegal to do more than the law requires. A technical legal discussion, however, is superfluous, since the true answer must be a moral one.
Previous page
