JX&yP ft TWR.W, nrr-ft i
The Commoner
MAY, 1915
11
hardships to which British prisoners of war are
subjected in the prison camps contrasting, we
believe, most unfavorably with the treatment of
German prisoners in this country. We have
proposed with the consent of the United States
government that a commission of United States
o Ulcers should be permitted in each country to
inspect the treatment of prisoners of'war. The
United States government have been unable to
obtain any reply from the German government to
this proposal and we remain in continuing anx
iety and apprehension as to the treatment of
British prisoners of war in Germany.
"3. At the very outset of the war a German
mine layer was discovered laying a mine field
on the high seas. Further mine fields have been
laid from time to time without warning and so
far as we know are still being laid on the high
seas, and many neutral as well as British vessels
have been sunk by them.
"4. At'various times during the war German
submarines have stopped and sunk British mer
chant vessels, thus making the sinking of mer
chant vessels a general practice though it was
admitted previously, if at all, only as an excep
tion. The general rule to which the British
government have adhered being that merchant
vessels, If captured,, must be taken before a prize
court. Jn one case already quoted in a note to
the United States government, a neutral vessel
carrying foodstuffs to an unfortified town in
Great Britain has been sunk. Ano'ther case is
now reported in which a German armed cruiser
has sunk an American vessel, the William P.
Frye, carrying a cargo of wheat from Seattle to
Queenstown. In both cases the cargoes were
presumably destined for the civil population.
Even the cargoes in such circumstances should
not have been condemned without the decision
of a prize court, much less should the vessels
havo been sunk. It Is to be noted that both these
cases occurred before the detention by the Brit
ish authorities of the Wilhelmlna and her cargo
of foodstuffs which the German government al
lege is the justification for their own action.
The Germans have announced their intention of
sinking British merchant vessels by torpedo
without notice and without any pro
vision for the safety of the crew.
They have already carried out this inten
tion in the case of neutral as well as of British
vessels and a number of noncombatant and in
nocent lives on British vessels, unarmed and de
fenseless, have been destroyed In this way.
"5. Unfortified, open, and defenseless towns,
such as Scarborough, Yarmouth, and Whitby
have been deliberately and wantonly bombarded
by German ships of war, causing in some cases
considerable loss of civilian life including wo
men and children.
"6. German aircraft have dropped bombs on
the east coast of England where there were no
military or strategic points to be attacked. On
the other hand I am aware of but two criticisms
that have been ma'de on British action in all
these respects: (1) It Is said that the British
naval authorities also have laid some anchored
mines on the high seas. They have done so,
but the mines were anchored and so constructed
that they would be harmless if they went adrift
and no mines whatever were laid by the British
naval authorities till many weeks after the Ger
mans had made a regular practice of laying
mines on the high seas. (2) It is said that the
British government have departed from the view
of international law which they had previously
maintained that foodstuffs destined for the civil
population should never be interfered with, this
charge being founded on the submission to a
prize court of the cargo q the Wilhelmlna, the
special considerations affecting this cargo have
already been presented in a memorandum to
the United States government and I need not
repeat them here. Inasmuch as the stoppage of
all foodstuffs is an admitted consequence of
blockade it is obvious that there can be no uni
versal rule based on considerations of morality
and humanity which is contrary to this practice.
The right to stop foodstuffs destined for the
civil population must therefore in any case be
admitted if an effective 'cordon' controlling in
tercourse with the enemy is drawn, announced
and maintained. Moreover, independently of
rights arising from belligerent action in the na
ture of blockade some nations differ ng from the
opinion of the government of the United States
and Great Britain have held that to stop the
food of the civil population is a natural and le
gitimate method of bringing pressure to bear
on an enemy country as It is upon the defense
o? a besieged town. It is also upheld on he au
thority of both Prince Bismarck and Count Ca
Prlvl and therefore presumably is not repugnant
to German morality. The following are the
quotations from Prlnco Bismarck and Count
Caprivi on this point. Prince Bismarck in an
swering in 1885 an application from the Kiel
chamber of commerce for a statement of the
view of the German government on the question
of the right to declare as contraband foodstuffs
that were not intended for military forces said,
'I reply to the chamber of commerce that any
disadvantage our commercial and carrying Inter
ests may suffer by the treatment of rice as con
traband of war does not justify your opposing a
measure which it has been thought fit to tako In
carrying on a foreign war. Every war Is a ca
lamity which entails evil consequences not only
on the combatants, but also on neutrals.
These evils may easily be increased by the in
terference of a neutral power with the way In
which a third carries on the war to tho disad
vantage of the subjects of the Interfering power,
and by this means German commerce might be
weighted with far heavier losses than a trans
itory prohibition of the rice trade in Chinese
waters. The measure in question has for its
object the shortening of the war by increasing
the difficulties of the enemy and is a justifiable
step In war If Impartially enforced against all
neutral ships.' Count Caprlvl during a discus
sion in the German Reichstag on the 4 th of
March, 1892, on the subject of tho Importance
of International protection for private property
at sea, made tho following statements: 'A
country may be dependent for her food or for
her raw products upon her trade. In fact, it
may be absolutely necessary to destroy the en
emy's trade.' 'The private Introduction
of provisions into Paris was prohibited during
the siege, and in the same way a nation would
be justified in preventing the import of food and
raw produce.' The government of Great Britain
havo frankly declared, In concert with tho gov
ernment of France, their Intention to meet the
German attempt to stop all supplies of every
kind from leaving or entering British or French
ports by themselves stopping supplies going to
or from Germany for this end. The British fleet
has instituted a blockade effectively controlling
by cruiser 'cordon' all passage to and from Ger
many by sea. The difference between tho two
policies is, however, that while our object Is the
sam as that of Germany we propose to attain
it without sacrificing neutral ships or noncom
batant lives or inflicting upon neutrals the dam
age that must be entailed when a vessel and Its
cargo are sunk without notice, examination, or
trial. I must emphasize again that this meas
ure is a natural and necessary consequence of
the unprecendented methods repugnant to all
law and morality which have been described
above which Germany began to adopt at the very
outset of the war and the effects of which have
beeir constantly accumulating."
American Ambassador, London.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE AMER
ICAN AMBASSADOR AT liONDON
(Telegram)
Department of State,
No. 1343.1 Washington, March 30, 1915.
You are instructed to deliver the following to
His Majesty's government in reply to your num
bers 1795 and 1798 of March 15:
The government of the United States has
given careful consideration to the subjects treat
ed in the British notes of March 13 and March
15, and to the British order in council of the
latter date.
These communications contain matters of
grave importance to neutral nations. They ap
pear to menace their rights of trade and inter
course not only with belligerents but also with
ono another. They call for frank comment In
order that misunderstandings may be avoided.
The government of the United States deems It
its duty, therefore, speaking In the slncerest
spirit of friendship, to make its own view and
position with regard to them unmistakably clear.
The order in council of the 15th of March
would constitute, were Its provisions to bo actu
ally carried Into effect as they stand, a practical
assertion of unlimited belligerent rights over
neutral commerce within the whole European
area, and an almost unqualified denial of the
sovereign rights of the nations now at peace.
This government takes it for granted that
there can be no question what those rights are.
A nation's, own sovereignty over its own ships
and citizens under its own flag on tho high seas
in time of peace is, of course, unlimited; and
that sovereignty suffers no diminution in time
of war, except in so far as the practice and con
sent of civilized nations has limited it by t1t
recognition of certain now clearly determine
rights, which It Is conceded may be exerciser
by nations which arc at war.
A belligerent nation has been conceded the right
of visit and search, and the right of capture an
condemnation. It upon examination a neutral
vessel Is found to bo engaged in unneutral ser
vice or to be carrying contraband of war intended
for the enemy's government or armed forces. It
has been conceded the right to establish and:
maintain a blockade of an enemy's ports and
coasts and to capturo and condemn any vessel
taken in trying to break the blockade. It Is even
conceded the right to detain and take to its own
ports for judicial examination all vessels which
it suspects for substantial reasons to be engaged
in unneutral contraband service and to condemn
them If the suspicion Is sustained. But such
rights, long clearly defined both In doctrlno and
practice, have hitherto been held to be the only
permissible exceptions to tho principle of uni
versal equality of sovereignty on the high sea
as between belligerents and nations not engaged
in war. 0
It is confidently assumed that His Majesty's
government will not deny that it Is a rule sanc
tioned by general practice that, even though a
blockade should exist and the doctrine of con
traband as to unblockadcd territory be rigidly
enforced, innocent shipments may bo freely
transported to and from tho United States
through neutral countries to belligerent territory
without being subject to tho penalties of con
traband traffic or breach of blockade, much less
to detention, requisition, or confiscation.
Moreover the rules of the Declaration of Paris
of 185C among them that free ships make free
goods will hardly at this day be disputed by
the signatories of that solemn agreement.
His Majesty's government, like tho govern
ment of the United States, have often and ex
plicitly held that these rights represent the best
usage of warfare in the dealings of belligerents
with neutrals at sea. In this connection I de
sire to direct attention to the opinion of the
r chief justice of tho United States in the case of
the Peterhof, which arose out of the civil war,
and to the fact that that opinion was unani
mously sustained in the award of the arbitration
commission of 1871, to which the case was pre
sented at the request of Great Britain. From
that time to the Declaration of London of 1909,
adopted with modifications by the order in
council of the 23d of October last, these rights
have not been seriously questioned by he Brit
ish government. And no claim on the part of
Great Britain of any justification for interfering
with these clear rights of the United States and
its citizens as neutrals could be admitted. To
admit It would be to assume an attitude of un
neutrallty toward the present enemies of Great
Britain which would be obviously inconsistent
with the solemn obligations of this government
In tho present circumstances; and for Great
Britain to make such a claim would be for her
to abandon and set at naught the principles for
which she has consistently and earnestly con
tended in other times and circumstances.
Tho note of Ills Majesty's principal secretary
of state for foreign affairs which accompanies
the order in council, and which bears the sams
date, notifies the government of the United
States of the establishment of a blockade whick
is, if defined by the terms of the order in coua
cll, to Include all the coasts and ports of Ger
many and every port of possible access to en
emy territory. But the novel and quite unpre
cedented feature of that blockade, if we are to
assume it to be properly so defined, is that it
embraces many neutral ports and coasts, bars
access to them, and subjects all neutral ships
seeking to approach them to the same suspicion
that would attach to them were they bound for
the ports of the enemies of Great Britain, and
to unusual risks and penalties.
It is manifest that such llmitatfons, risks, and
liabilities placed upon the ships of a neutral
power on the high seas, beyond the right of visit
and search and the right to prevent the ship
ment of contraband already referred to, are a
distinct invasion of the sovereign rights of th
nation whose ships, trade, or commerce is inter
fered with.
The government of the United States is of
course not oblivious to the great changes whick
have occurred in the conditions and means of
naval warfare since the rules ''hitherto govern
ing legal blockade were formulated. It might
be ready to admit that the old form of "close
blockade with its cordon of ships in the imnie'
diate offing of the blockaded ports is no longest
i
j