Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1915)
"TpTfV t'lWWJS! The Commoner VOL. 15, NO. 2 luV N . i-4 I' KiW t ft B I Jl I fe,' f". & iW. K W. w NEUTRALITY 9 I Correspondence Between the Secretary of State and Chairman of Committee on Foreign Relations Relating to Certain Complaints Made That the American Government Has Shown Partiality to Certain Belligerents During the Present European War. LETTER OF SENATOR STONE January 8, 1915. Dear Mr. Secretary: As you aro aware, frequent complaints or charges are mado in one form or another through the press that this government has shown par tiality to Great Britain, Prance, and Russia as against Gormany and Austria during tho present war hetwcen those powers; in addition to which I havo received numerous letters to tho same ef fect from sympathizers with Germany and Aus tria. Tho various grounds of these complaints may ho summarized and stated in tho following form: 1. Freedom of communication hy submarine cables, but censorship of wireless messages. 2. Submission to censorship of mails and in gome cases to tho repeated destruction of Amer ican letters found on neutral vessels. 3. Tho search of American vessels for Ger man and Austrian subjects (a) On tho high seas. (b) In territorial waters of a belligerent. 4.. Submission without protest to English vi olations of tho rules regarding absolute arid con ditional contraband, as laid down (a) In the Hague conventions. (b) In international law. (c) In the Declaration of London. 5. Submission without protest to inclusion of copper in tho list of absolute contraband. 6. Submission without protest to interference with American trade to neutral countries (a) In conditional contraband. (b) In absolute contraband. 7. Submission without protest to interruption of trade in conditional contraband, consigned to private persons in Germany and Austria, thereby supporting the policy of Great Britain to cut off all supplies from Germany and Austria. 8. Submission to British interruption of trade in petroleum, rubber, leather, wool, etc. 9. No interference with the sale to Great Britain and her allies of arms, ammunition, horses, uniforms, and other munitions of war, although such sales prolong the war. 10. No suppression of sale of dumdum bul lets to Great Britain. 11. British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and Intercept neutral vessels. 12. Submission without protest to disregard by Great Britain and her allies of " (a) American naturalization certificates. (b) American passports. 13. Change of policy in regard to loans to belligerents: (a) General loans. (b) Credit loans. 14. Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral vessels and in British ports, and their imprisonment. 15. Indifferenco to confinement of noncom batants in detention camps in England and France. 16. Failure to prevent transshipment of Brit ish troops and war material across the territory of tho United States. 17. Treatment and final internment of Ger man steamship Geior and the collier Locksun at Honolulu. 18. Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling of warships in Panama canal zone. 19. Failure to protest against the modifica tions of the declaration of London by the Brit ish government. 20. General unfriendly attitude of govern ment toward Gormany and Austria. If you deem it not incompatible with the pub lic interest I would bo obliged if you would fur nish mo with whatever information your depart ment may have touching these various points of complaint, or request the counselor of the state department to send mo the information, with any suggestions you or he may deem advisable to make with respect to either the legal or political aspects of the subject. So far as informed I see no reason why nil tho matter I am requesting to bo furnished should not be made public, to tho end that the true situation may bo known and misapprehensions quieted. I havo the honor to be, Yours, sincerely, WM. J. STONE. Hon. William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State. . , ' LETTER OF SECRETARY OF STATE Department of State, Washington, January 20, 1915. Dear Mr. Stone: I have received your letter of the 8th instant, referring to frequent complaints or charges made in one form or another through the press that this government has shown partiality to Great Britain, France and Russia against Ger many and Austria during the present war, and stating that you have received numerous letters to the same effect from sympathizers with the latter powers. You summarize the various grounds of these complaints and ask that you be furnished with whatever information the depart ment may have touching these points of com plaint, in order that you may be informed as to what the true situation is in regard to these mat ters. In order that you may have such information as the department has on the subjects referred to in your letter, I will take them up seriatim. (1) Freedom of communication by subma rine cables versus censored communication by wireless. Tho reason that wireless messages and cable messages require different treatment by a neu tral government is as follows: Communications by wireless can not be in terrupted by a belligerent. With a submarine cable it is otherwise. The possibility of cutting the cable exists, and if a belligerent possesses naval superiority, the cable fc cut, as was the German cable near the Azores by one of Ger many's enemies, and as was the British cable near Fanning island by a German naval force. Since a cable is subject to hostile attack, tho responsibility falls upon the belligerent and not upojj the neutral to prevent cable communica tion. A more important- reason, however, at least from the point of view of a neutral government, is that messages sent out from a wireless sta tion in neutral territory may be received by bel ligerent warships on tho high seat,. If these messages, whether plain or in cipher, direct the movements of warships or convey to them in formation as to the location of an enomy's public or private vessels, the neutral territory becomes a base of naval operations, to permit which would be essentially unneutral. As a wireless message can be received by all stations and vessels within a given radius, every message in cipher, whatever its intended destin ation, must be censored, otherwise military in formation may be sent to warships off the coast of a neutral. It Is manifest that a submarine cable is incapable of becoming a means of direct communication with a warship on the high seas hence its use can not as a rule makq neutral ter ritory a base for tho direction of naval opera tions. (2) Censorship of mails and in somo cases repoated destruction of American letters on neu tral vessels. As to the censorship of mails, Germany as well as Great Britain has pursued this course in re gard to private letters falling into their hand Tho unquestioned right to adopt a measure of this sort makes objection $o it inadvisable It has been asserted that American mail on board Dutch steamers has been repeatedlv de Btroyed. No evidence to this effect has been fiwi with the government, and therefore no represen tations have been made. Until such a case & presented in concrete form, this government would not be justified in presenting the mattS to the offending belligerent. Complaints hav come to the department that mail on board neu tral steamers has been opened and detained, but there seem to be but few cases where the mail from neutral countries has.not been finally de livered. When mail is sent to belligerent coun tries open and is of a neutral and private char acter, it has not been molested, so far as the de partment is advised. (3) Searching of American vessels for Ger man and Austrian subjects on tho high seas and in territorial waters of a belligerent. So far as this government has been informed, no American vessels on the high seas, vAth two exceptions, have been detained or searched by belligerent warships for German and Austrian subjects. One of the exceptions to which refer ence is made is now the subject of a rigid Inves tigation, and vigorous representations have been made to the offending government. The other exception, where certain German passengers were made to sign a promise not to take part in the war, has been brought to the attention of the offending government with a declaration that such procedure, if true, is an unwarranted ex ercise of jurisdiction over American vessels in which this government will not acquiesce. An American private vessel entering volun tarily the territorial waters of a belligerent be comes subject to its municipal laws, as do the persons on board the vessel. There have appeared in certain publications the assertion that failure to protest in these cases is an abandonment of the principle for which the United States went to war in 1812. If the failure to protest were true, which it is not, the principle involved is entirely different from the one appealed to against unjustifiable impress ment of Americans in the British navy in time of peace. (4) Submission without protest to British violations of tho rules regarding absolute and conditional contraband as laid down in the Hague conventions, tho Declaration of London and in tornationaPlaw. There is no Hague convention which deals with absolute or conditional contraband, and, as the Declaration of London is not in force, the rules of international law only apply. As to the articles to be regarded as contraband there is no general agreement between nations. It is the practice for a country, either in time of peace or after the outbreak of war to declare the articles which it will consider as absolute or conditional contraband. It is true that a neutral govern ment is seriously affected by this declaration, as the rights of its subjects or citizens may be im paired. But the rights and interests of belliger ents and neutrals are opposed in respect to con traband articles and trade and there is no tri bunal to which questions of difference may be readily submitted. The record of the United States in the past is not free from criticism. When neutral this gov ernment has stood for a restricted list of absolute and conditional contraband. As a belligerent, we have contended for a liberal list according to our conception of the necessities of the case. The United States has made earnest represen tations to Great Britain in regard to the seizure and detention by the British authorities of all American ships or cargoes bona fido destined to neutral ports, on the ground that such seizures and detentions were contrary to the existing rules of international law.. It will be recalled, however, that American courts have established various rules bearing on these matters. The rule of "continuous voyage" has been not only asserted by American tribunals but extended by them. They have exercised the right to deter mine from the circumstances whether the osten sible was the real destination. They have held thatHhe shipment of articles of contraband to a neutral port "to order," from rrhich, as a matter of fact, cargoes had been transshipped to the enemy, is corroborative evidence that the cargo is really destined to the enemv, instead of to the neutral port of delivery, It is thus seen that some of the doctrines which appear to bear harshly upon neutrals at the present time are analogous to or outgrowths from policies adopt ed by the United States when it was a belliger ent. The government therefore can not consist ently protest against the application pf rules which it has followed in the past, unless they have not been practiced as heretofore. (5) Acquiescence without protest to the in clusion of copper and other articles in tho Brit ish lists of absolute contraband. The United States has nowunder considera tion the question of the right of a belligerent to Include "copper unwrought" in its lists of abso lute contraband instead of in its list of condi- - r' rO