Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (May 1, 1915)
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!
