ID
The Commoner
v
VOL. 15, NO. 5
12
LI'
fill
Pi1-
'.
w
F
ffi.
HT:
K
v-
V
K&i.
&
I1'
m.v.'
&,-.'
K
-
ft
L
W-
lr
Kit-'
Hli
practicable in face of an enemy possessing the
means and opportunity to make an effective de
fonco by the uso of submarines, mines, and air
craft; but it. can hardly bo maintained that,
whatever form of effective blockade may be
mado uso of, It is impossible to conform at least
to tho spirit and principles of tho established
rules of war. If tho necessities of tho case
should seem to render it imperative that tho cor
don of blockading vessels bo extended across the
approaches to any neighboring neutral port or
country, it would seem clear that it would still
bo easily practicable to comply with tho well
recognized and reasonable prohibition of inter
national law against the blockading of neutral
ports by according free admission and exit to all
lawful traffic with neutral ports through the ,
blockading cordon. This traffic would of course
includo all outward-bound traffic from the neu
tral country and all inward-bound traffic to the
neutral country except contraband in transit to
tho enemy. Such procedure need not conflict
in any respect with the rights of the belligerent
maintaining the blockado since the right would
remain with tho blockading vessels to visit and .
search all ships either entering or leaving the
neutral territory which they wero in fact, but
not of right, investing.
The government of the United States notes
that in tho order in council His Majesty's gov
ernment give as their reason for entering upon
a course of action, which they are aware is with
out precedent in modern wanfare, the necessity
they conceive themselves to have been placed
under to retaliate upon their enemies for meas
ure's of a similar nature, which the latter have
announced it their intention to adopt and which
they have to some extent adopted; but the gov
ernment of the United States, recalling the prin
ciples upon which His Majesty's government
have hitherto been scrupulous to act, interprets
this as merely a reason for certain extraordinary
activities on the part of His Majesty's naval forces
and not as an excuse for or prelude to any unlaw
ful action. If tho course pursued by the present
enemies of Great Britain should prove to be in
fact tainted by illegality and disregard of the
principles of war sanctioned by enlightened na
tions, it can not be supposed, and this govern
ment does not for a moment suppose, that His
Majesty's government would wish the same taint
to attach to their own actions or would cite such
illegal acts as in any sense or degree a justifica
tion for similar practices on their part in so far
as they affect neutral rights.
It is thus that the government of the United
States interprets the language of the note of His
Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign
affairs which accompanies the copy of the order
in council which was handed to the ambassador
of the United States near the government in
London and by him transmitted to Washington.
' This government notes with gratification that
"wide discretion is afforded to the prize court
in dealing with the trade of neutrals in such
manner as may in the circumstances be deemed
just, and that full provision is made to facilitate
claims by persons interested in any .goods placed
in the custody of the marshal of the prize oourt
under the order;" that "the effect of the order
ih council is to confer certain powers upon tho
executive officers of His Majesty's government;"
and that "the extent to which these powers will
be actually exercised and the degree of severity
with which tho measures of blockade authorized
will bo put Into operation are matters wliich will
depend on the administrative orders issued by
tho government and tho decisions of the author
ities especially charged with the duty of dealing
with individual ships and cargoes according to
the merits of each case." This government fur
ther notes with equal satisfaction tho declara
tion of the British government that "the instruc
tions to be issued by His Majesty's government
to the fleet andto the customs officials and ex
ecutive committees concerned will impress upon
them the duty of acting with the utmost de
spatch consistent with tho object in view, and of
showing in every case such consideration for
neutrals as may be compatible with that object,
which is, succinctly stated, to establish a block
ade to prevent vessels from carrying goods for
or coming from Germany."
In view of these assurances formally given to
tals government, it is confidently expected that
tho extensive powers conferred by the order in
council on the executive officers of the Crown
will he restricted by "orders issued by the gov-
eminent" directing the exercise of their dis
cretionary powers in such a manner as to modify
in practical application those" provisions of the
order in council which, if strictly enforced,
would violate neutral rights and interrupt le
gitimate trade. Relying on the faithful per
formance of these voluntary assurances by His
Majesty's government tho United States talces
it for granted that the approach of American
merchantmen to neutral ports situated upon
the long line of coast affected by the order in
council will not he interfered with when it is
known that they do not carry goods wliich are
contraband of war or goods destined to or pro
ceeding from ports within the "belligerent terri
tory affected.
The government of the United States assumes
with the greater confidence that His Majesty's
government will thus adjust their practice to the
recognized rules of international law, because it
is manifest that the British government have
adopted an extraordinary method of "stopping
cargoes destined for or coming from the enemy's
territory," which, owing to the existence of un
usual conditions in modern warfare at sea, it
will be difficult to restrict to the limits which
have been heretofore required by the law of
nations. Though the area of operations is con
fined to "European waters including the Medit
erranean," so great an area of the liigh seas is
covered and the cordon of ships is so distant
from the territory affected that neutral vessels
must necessarily pass through the blockading
force in order to reach important neutral ports
wliich Great Britain as a belligerent has not the
legal right to "blockade and which, therefore, it
is presumed she has no intention of claiming to
blockade. The Scandinavian and Danish ports,
for example, are open to American trade. They
are also free, so far as the actual enforcement of
the order in council is concerned, to carry on
trade with German Baltic ports, although it is
an essential element of blockade that it bear
with equal severity upon all neutrals.
This government, therefore, infers that the
commanders of His Majesty's ships of war en
gaged in maintaining the so-called blockade will
be instructed to avoid an enforcement of the
proposed measures of non-intercourse in such a
way as to impose restrictions upon neutral trade
more burdensome than those wliich have been
regarded as inevitable when the ports of a bel
li crerent are actually blockaded by the ships of
its enemy.
The possibilities of serious interruption of-'
American trade under the order in council are
so many, and the methods proposed are so un
usual and seem liable to constitute so great an
impediment and embarrassment to neutral com
merce that the- government of the United States;
if the order in council is strictly enforced, ap
prehends many interferences with its legitimate
trade which will impose upon His Majesty's gov
ernment heavy responsibilities foracts of the
British authorities clearly subversive of the
rights of neutral nations on the high seas. It is,
therefore, expected that His Majesty's govern
ment having considered these possibilities will
take the steps necessary to avoid them, and, in
the event that they should unhappily occur, will
be prepared to make full reparation for every
act, which under the rules of international law
constitutes a violation of neutral rights.
As stated in its communication of October 22,
1914, "this government will insist that the
rights and duties of the United States and its
citizens in the present war be defined by the ex
isting rules of international law and the treaties
of the United States, irrespective of the pro
visions of the Declaration of London, and that
this government reserves to itself the right to
enter a protest or demand in each case in which
those rights and; duties so defined are violated
or their free exercise interfered with, by the au
thorities of the British government.
In conclusion you will reiterate to His Ma
jesty's government that this statement of the
views of the government of the United States is
made in the most friendly spirit, and in accord
ance with the uniform candor which has char
acterized the relations of the two governments
in the past, and which has been in large measure
the foundation of the peace and amity existing
between the two nations without interruption for
a century.
BRYAN.
THE GERMAN AMBASSADOR TO THE SEP
RETARY OF STATE
(Translation)
Imperial German Embassy
No. A2341. Washington, April,4, 1915.
Mr. Secretary of Stao:
1 have the honor to deliver to Your Excellency
the enclosed memorandum on German-American
trade and tho "question of delivery of arms
Accept, etc., J. BERNSTORFF.
(Memorandum)
Imperial Germany Embassy
No. A2841. Washington, D. C, April 4, 1915
. The various British orders in council hivo
one-sidedly modified the generally recognized
principles of international law in a way which
arbitrarily stops the commerce of neutral na
tions with Germany. Even before the last Brit"
ish order in council, the shipment of conditional
contraband, especially food supplies, to Germany
was practically impossible. Prior to the protest
sent by the American to the British government
-on December 28 last, such a shipment did not
actually take place in a single case. Even after
this protest the Imperial Embassy knows of
only a single case in which an American shipper
has ventured to make a shipment for the pur
pose of legitimate sale to Germany. Both ship
and cargo were immediately seized by the Eng
lish and are being held in an English port under
the pretext of an order of the German federal
council (Budesrat) regarding the grain trade,
although this resolution of the federal council
relates exclusively to grain and flour v and not to
other foodstuffs, besides making an express ex
ception with respect to imported foodstuffs, and
although the German government gave the
American government an assurance, and pro
posed a special organization whereby the exclu
sive consumption "by the civilian population is
absolutely guaranteed.
Under these circumstances, the seizure of the
American, ship was inadmissible according to
recognized principles of international law. Nev
ertheless the United States government has not
to date secured the release of the ship and cargo,
and has not, after a duration of the war of eight
months, succeeded in protecting its lawful trade
with Germany.
Such a long delay, especially in matters of
food supply, is equivalent to an entire denial.
The Imperial Embassy must therefore assume
that the United States government acquiesces in
the violations of international law by Great
Britain.
Then there is also the attitude of the United
States in the question of the exportation of
arms. The Imperial government feels sure that
the United States government will agree that in
questions of neutrality it is necessary to take in
to consideration not only the formal aspect of
the case, but also the spirit in which the neu
trality is carried out.
The situation in the present war differs from
that of any previous war. Therefore any refer
ence to arms furnished by Germany in former
wars is not justified, for then it was not a ques
tion whether war material should be supplied to
the belligerents, but who should supply it in
competition with other nations. In the present
war all nations having a war material industry
worth mentioning are either Involved in the war
themselves ox are engaged in perfecting their
own armaments, and have therefore laid an em
bargo against the exportation of war material.
The United States is accordingly the only neu
tral country in a position to furnish war ma
terials. The conception of neutrality is thereby
given a new purport, independently of the formal
question of hitherto existing law. In contradic
tion thereto, the United States 1b building up
powerful arms industry in the broadest sense,
the existing plants not only being worked but
enlarged by all available means, and new ones
built. The international conventions for the
protection of the rights of neutral nations
doubtless sprang from the necessity of protect
ing the existing industries .of neutral nations as
far as possible from injury in their business.
But it can in no event be in accordance with the
spirit of true neutrality if, under the protection
of such international stipulations, an entirely
new industry is-created in a neutral state, such
as is the development of he arms industry in
the United States, the business whereof, under
the present conditions, can benefit only the bel
ligerent powers.
This industry is actually delivering goods only
to the enemies of Germany. The theoretical
willingness to supply Germany also if shipments
thither were possible, does not alter the case
If it is the will of the American people that there
shall be a true neutrality, the United States will
find, means of preventing this one-sided supply
of armB or at least of utilizing it to protect le
gitimate trade with Germany, especially that in
foodstuffs. This view of neutrality should all
the more appeal to the United States govern-
tv
r.
..n
dm&
EWA!-Vf!