D 8 7 8 9: 91 1 1 i 9 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY EACILITY ■1 1 III nil EUROPEAN WAR No. 2. [Printed and distributed October 21, 1913.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH BELLIGERENT GOVERNMENTS RELATING TO NEUTRAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES. WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTrNQ OFFICE : 1916 JNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNl/^ LOS ANGELES JUL 1^^ W LIBRARY GOVT. PUBS. ROOM LIST OF PAPERS. PART I. Proclamations of Neutrality and Papers relating to Neutrality. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. 1915. May 24 Proclamation by the President 15 AMERICAN NEUTRALITY— AN APPEAL BY THE PRESIDENT. 1914. Aug. 18 Requests the assistance of citizens in maintaining neutrality. 17 NEUTRALITY IN THE WATERS OF THE ISTHMUS OF PANAMA. 1914. Oct. 10 Text of protocol . 18 PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY— PANAMA CANAL ZONE. 1914. Nov. 13 Proclamation by the President. PREVENTION OF THE VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY. 19-15. Mar. 4 Text of Joint Resolution of Congress. 20 PART II. Violations of Neutrality — Panama Canal. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. 432 The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. 1914. Dec. 18 Transmits statement from the British Minister in Panama regarding reported violation of neutrality of Panama Canal by British ships. 23 The German Ambassador to the Dec. 21 Refers to desire of British steamers Mallina and Tre- 24 Counselor. meadow, British tenders, desiring coal and right to sail, and says case seeme dentical with German S. S. Locksun. The Secretary of State to the British Dec. 23 Says Department is giying attention to Embassy's 24 Ambassador. note regarding matter of yiolation of Panama Canal Zone neutrality. The Counselor to the German Ambas- Dec. 23 Says the British steamships Mallina and Tremeadow 24 sador. are considered by the Canal Zone authorities as coming under Rule 2 of Proclamalion of Nov. 13. 448 The British .Embassador to the Sec- retary of State. Dec. 25 1915. Transmits a further report from the British Minister at Panama regarding violation of neutrality of Panama Canal Zone. 25 The Acting Secretary of State to the Jan. 2 Acknowledges above note and says it will receive 25 British Ambassador. the Department's attentive consideration.together with prewous correspondence on the subject. No. 371 1133 J. A. 2985 LIST OF PAPEBS. PART III. Violations of Neutrality by Belligerent Warships. From and to whom. The British Ambassador to the Coun- Belor. Tlie Gorman Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The Acting Secretary ot" State to the British Ambaiwador. The Acting Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. The German Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. The BritLsh Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary ot Slate. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. Date. 1914 Sept. 24 Oct. 21 Oct. 31 Nov. 2 Nov. 23 Dec. 15 Dec. 24 1915. Mar. 24 1 Mar. o- Mar. 29 Apr. 5 Subject. Page. Says British ships have been instructed not to re- quest 8uppli<« from New York. Says Embassy is advised that British warship Essfx is receiving supplies and asks that investigation be made. Refers to conduct of the Italian steam.''hip Amisla and asks that an effort be made to prevent nuntral ships from leaving American ports with supplies for enemy. Says destination of Italian steamship Amista will be investigated, and states in this connection that careful investitjation is made of every suspicious case of vessels leaving American ports. Says further investigation will be made if Embassy can supply evidence regarding the furnishing of supplies to the British cruiser Essex. Transmits memorandum from German Government on subject of the delivery of coal to warslxips of belUgerent States. Acknowledges above memorandum and defines policy of the United States relative to the deliv- ery of coal and other necessaries to warships of belligerent States. Says British ships have been instructed to strictly observe United States neutrality regulations. Refers to conduct of the British cruisers Bellcrophon and Rainbow; asks that investigation be made and uistructions given to prevent future viola- tions. Acknowledges above and says matter will be brought to the attention of his Government. Sends e.\tract from letter of Admii-al in command of North American station regarding provisioning, etc., of British ships. 29 29 29 30 .30 31 31 33 33 33 33 PART IV. Defensive Armament and the Right of Departure from Neutral Ports of Belligerent Merchant Ships to Arm at Sea. 252 259 2G4 28'J 302 The British Charge to the Secretary of State. The British Charge to the Secretary of State. The British Charg^ to the Secretary of State'. The Secretary of State to the British Charg6. The Secretary of State to the British Charg^. The British Ambassador to the Secre- tary of State. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. The British Ambassador to the Secre- tary of State. Memorandum from the Biiti-sh Em- Memorandum from the British Em- bassy. Memorandum from the British Em- bassy. 1914. Aug. 4 Aug. 9 Aug. 12 Aug. 19 Axig. 20 Aug. 25 A\ig. 29 Sept. 4 Sept. 7 Sept. 9 Sept. 9 Communicates ^'iew8 of British Government rela- tive to the arming of merchant vessels in neutral waters. Transmits further communication explaining posi- tion taken by the British Govemmeat relative to the question of armed merchantmen. Says British Go.ernment has communicated to practicilly all netitral countries information simi- lar to above. Acknowledges communic-ations relative to qiiestion of the arming of merchant vessels in neutral waters and defines attitude of United States relative thereto. .Vclcnowledges Embassy's 259 and says Department's note of 19th expresses \'iews on siibject of arme^l mcrch.intmen. Refers to pre\dous correspondence on subject of armed merchantmen, and says British merchant vessels are armed only for defense. Acknowledges receipt of above note. Says instructions have been given for the British ship Merrion to land her guns, British ship Adric.'ic having already sailed. Savs British ship Adriatic which left New York September 3 is on a peaceful commercial \ oyage and armed solely for defensive purposes. Refers to Germ.m policy of arming merchant ships, and says if I'nited States takes \-icw that British merchant shii)3 shoi'.ld not carry defensive arma- ment trade of two countries m.iy Ki-lter. States xmavoidalde injury may ensue if Briti.sh merchant ve.s.«ols are not permitted purely de- fensive armament. 37 37 38 38 40 41 41 41 42 42 43 LIST f>F PAPERS. PART IV— Continuod. Defensive Armament and the Right of Departure from Neutral Ports of Belligerent Merchant Ships to Arm at Sea — Continued. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. The Acting Sncretary of State to tha German Ambassador. Tho ActiiiL; .Socretary of State ti) the B ri tish ,\ in ba.ssador , Tlio .\oting Secretary of State t-) the French Aml)as.«ad<)r. Tlie Acting Secretary of State t.) tho Japanese Amba.ssador. The Acting Secretary of State to tho Belgian Minister. The Acting Secretary of State to tho British Ambassador. The SecnHary of State to .•Vrabaasador Gerard. .\rabassador Gerard to tha Secretary of State (telegram). The -Acting Secretary of State tJ -Embassador Gerard "(telegram). 1914. Sept. 19 Sept. 10 Sept. 19 Sept. 19 Sept. 19 Sept. 26 Sept. 20 Oct. ]."i Nov. 7 TransmiUs copies of two Memoranda defining the rulM! which will be followed in cases involving stiitiiH of armed merchant vessels visiting ports of the United States. Same as above 43 43 Do 43 D.) 43 Do 43 TjOO 11:! Refers to Embassy's August 4 and says Department has published a statement on subject of armed mercliautmon. Transmits copies of Memoranda on subject of armed merc'hant ships with instiiictions to communicate to German Government. Comm\inicate.s views of German Government on subject of armed merchant ships visiting neutral waters. Says De])artment dissents from view of German (lovernraent relative to treatment to lie accorded to armed merchant vessels in neutral ports. 44 45 45 45 PART V. Internment of the German Ships Geier and Locksun. From and to whom. The British Amba.'isador to the Sec- rotary of State. The Japanese Ambassador to the Counselor. The Assistant Secretary of the Treas- ury to tbe Secretary of State. The .\cting Secretary of State to Ambas.sador Guthrie. The Counselor to the German Am- bassador. The Counselor to the Japanese Am- biissador. The Acting Secretary of State to tho British Ambassador. The Counselor to the German Ambas- sador. Tho German .Embassador to the Counselor of the Department. The German .\nibiissador to the Sec- retary of Slate. The Secretary of State to the German Ambas.sador. The Counselor of the Department to the German Aml)aasador. The German Ambassador to the Secretary 01 State. The Acting Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. The Secretary of State to the German Ambafwador. Date. 1914. Oct. 28 Oct. 28 Oct. 28 Oct. 30 Oct. 30 Oct. 30 Oct. 30 Nov. 7 Nov. 11 Nov. 11 Nov. 12 Nov. 16 Nov. 21 Nov. 27 Dec. 11 Subject. Requests that German warship frfiV/-, undergoing re- pairs at Honolulu, be interned and suggesl.'i there is f round fur detaining the (ierman coal-laden ship lOcksim at Honolidu for intiuiry. Reguests further information regarding the dispo- sition of the Oder. Forwards report on the condition of the Geicr States that captain of the Gcici- has been notified that repairs must be made within definite time or ves- sel will be interned. Reviews facts concerning the Geier and states the period that has been fixed for the completion of repairs. States that the Cierman .Embassador has been in- formed of Ciovernmont's intention to fix delinile period within which repairs of the Geier should be completed. Reviews the status of the Geier and states that in- structions have been i.ssued to detain the Locksun pending an investigation. States that the Locksun may reasonably be consid- ered a tender to the Gcicr and that "the Govern- ment has taken stejjs to have her interned if she does not leave immediately. Discusses the detention of the Locksun and inquires on which regulati(m it is ba.sed. Draws attention to 2 ollicers of tho Geier who have been interned in the United States. Reports the internment of the Geier and Locksun States the principle on which the Locksun was in- terned. Protests against internment of German steamship Locksun, and compares her status with that of the tug Dahill. which he says carried supplies to the Hriti Subject. I Page. Reports a conference which h<: had wilh th<> Brit- Lsh Minisler for Foreign Affairs and the head cen- sor regarding complaints against censorship of commercial cables. Reports that .\merican trade in Italy is suffering on account of cable censorship. Says Italian Gov- ernment asks United States cooperation. Instructs Embassy to call again to attention of For- eign Office action of censors in holding up com- mtTcial cables. Says British Government approves use of Meyers cotton code. Says he has taken up matter of cable censorship with Danish and Swu May « May 13 May 27 Juno 3 Subject. Transmit,'< note from Foreign OfTico regarding Wost,- orn Union Oo.'s protest against British consorsliip. Say.s French (tovornment considers use of one cotton code (|uite sufficient. Transmits Hrilish Foreign OfSce memorandum on svibject of cablegram censorshii). Instructs Eml)assy to present all stopped messages to Foreign Office and ask to bo given reason for stoppage. Instructs Embassy to bring matter of delayed South American cable to attention of I'^oreign Office and urge action. Says Foreign Office ha.s instructerl censors to T)ass telegrams to South American countries and tliinks there will be no further trouble. Saya reported delayed raos.-;age to South America can not bo traced. Advi.ses u.so of cable route which does not touch Great Britain or her pos- sessions. Page. 92 92 92 93 93 94 9-1 PART IX. Belgian Relief. From and to whom. The Secretary of Stato to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). Minister Wliitlock to the Secretary of Stato (telegram). The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (telegram). The Acting Secretary of Stato to Jlinister ^\^litlock (telegi'am). The Acting Secretary of State to Minister Wlutlock (tele,gi'am). Andiassador Pago to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Acting Secretary of Statj to Amoassador Herrick (telegram). The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegramj. Ambassador Herrick to the Secretary of Stato (telegram). The Actin" SecreUiry of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State (telegi-am). The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. The German Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The German Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. Consul General Skinner to the Sec- retary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Consul Gen- eral Skinner. Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of Stato (telegram). Memorandum to the German Em- bassy. Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of Stote. Ambassador Page to the Secrtjtary of State (telegram). Date. 1914. Oct. 7 Oct. IG Oct. 19 Oct. 19 Oct. 20 Oct. 26 Oct. 31 Nov. 7 Nov. 11 Nov. 20 Nov. 23 Dec. 1 Dec. 4 Dec. 5 Dec. 8 Dec. 10 Dec. 11 Dec. 18 Dec. 28 Dec. 28 Subject. Instructed to obtain from German Government definite assurance regarding work of Belgian re- lief committee. Reports regarding plan for supplying food to the jtoor of Brussels and asks Department's approval. Says German Government approves plan of Belgian relief committee. Instructs Embassy to proceed on lines of October 6. Says German Government approves plan to import foodstuffs for Belgiimi and Embassy at London has been advised. Says Department approves action reported in tele- gram of October 16. Says Embassy has assiu'ance of German commander that foodstiiffs sent by Commission will not be confiscated . Instructed to ascertain if France will object to transit of foodstuffs shipped by Relief Commission to Belgium. Instructed to ascertain if Germany will permit slu]i- ment of food from United States to IloUand for Belgium and whether there is an embargo on second-hand clotliing. Says French Government does not object to transit of foodstuffs through Netherlands to Belgium. Instructed to obtain safe passage of British and neu- tral ships with supplies for Belgium and permis- sion for American automobiles to distribute food. Saya German Government will not interfere with neutral ships carrying food for Belgiimi, but un- neutral ships must have proper certificate in- dorsed by German Ambassador at Washington. Advises him as to above, and asks if Embassy con- curs in proposal. Repli?a to above, and says proposal meets with his approval. Says he has instructed German Consul to issue cer- tificates for safe conduct to unneutral ships carry- ing food for Belgium. Says Belgium Relief Commission asks if United States will furnish naval sliips for carrjdng sup- plies. Saya Navy Department states that there are not suitable ships available for use of Belgian Relief Commission. Says passes have been issued by German authorities to American automobiles used to distribute food. Extends expressions of appreciation of Belgian Re- lief Commission for safe conduct of ships. Transmit? note from German Foreign Office relative to wording of certificates for unneutral ships carrj iiig fnod for Belgians. Says reports shoidd be sent to British Ambassador fegarding idl Belgian relief ships. Page. 97 97 98 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 100 101 101 101 102 No. 184 399 187 74 195 196 34 45 46 47 53 55 215 LIST OP PAPERS. PART IX— Continued. Belgian Relief — Continued. From and tfi whom. Minister Van Dyke to tho Secretary ol State (tel^ram). Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State (telegram). Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State. Minister Van Dvke to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telc^am). Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State (telegram"). Tlio Secretary of State to Minister Van Dyke (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister \'an Dyke (telegram). Minister Van Dyke to the Secretary of State. Minister Van Dyke to the Secretary of State. Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State. Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State. Minister WTiitlock to the Secretary of State. Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State. The German Ambassador to the Secre- tary of State (telegram) . Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State. Ambassador Sharp to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Jlinister Whitlock. The Secretary of State to Minister Whitlock. Minister Van Dyke to the Secretary of State. Ambassador Page to the Secretary of SUte. Memorandum to the German Em- The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (telegram). Date. 1 1914. Doc. 29 1915. Jan. 2 Jan. 2 Jan. 4 Jan. 13 Jan. 17 Jan. 21 Jan. 21 Jan. 22 Jan. 22 Jan. 2G Jan. 28 Jan. 28 Jan. 28 Jan. 28 Feb. 3 Feb. 10 Feb. 18 Feb. 23 Mar. 3 Mar. 10 Mar. 11 Apr. 3 Subject. Says foodstuffs for Limburg taxed by German com- mander. Says Gorman Governor General in Belgium has issued Ofdcis forbidding requisition of foodstuffs for Bel- gians. Transmits note from Foreign Office stating that food- stuffs for Belgian relief will not be requisitioned. Says tax imposed on flour at Limburg removed and taxes collected refunded. Instructed to ascertain from German Foreign Office if commander at Limburg is exacting tax on food- stuffs. Says Minister Van Dyke reports removal of tax at Limbur" and that investigation will be dropped. Instructed to report regarding removal of tax on foodstuffsat Limburg. Instructed to confirm report from Berlin relative to removal of tax on foodstuffs at Limburg. Reports regarding removal of tax on foodstuffs at Limburg. Says Netherlands Government has given Commission for Relief in Belgium free use of railways, postal and telegraphic ser\dce, and exemption from duty of automobiles. Transmits copy of note from German authorities at Brussels regarding exemption of foodstuffs from requisition. Reports satisfactory adjustment of matter of customs duties on foodstuffs for Belgium. Refers to the above, and says city of Antwerp also included. Saya German authoritiea state that cattle and their food also exempt from military requisition. Says German Government state that foodstuffs from United States to Belgium will not be used for mili- tary or naval piu-poses. Says German authorities at Maubeuge will not requi- sition foodstuffs for Belgian relief. Says French Government has no objection to ship- ment of Argentine maize to Rotterdam for relief of Belgians and French in territory controlled by German)^. Says Belgian Relief Commission, Committee of Mercy, etc., advised of exemption of cattle and their food from military requisition. Says information regarding exemption of foodstuffs has been conveyed to Commission for Relief in Belgium, Committee of Mercy, etc. Transmits memorandum presented by the German Minister at The Hague regarding freedom of ships of Belgian Relief Commission. Saya Foreign Office states that flag and markings of Belgian Relief Commission will be used only on ships carrying goods of commission. Advises him regarding reported British attitude toward Belgian relief work and refers to assurance of British Government relative to Commission's flag and markings. Instructed to inform Belgian Relief Commission re- garding an attack on one of its vessels by a German aeroplane. PART X. Attempt of German Ship Odenwald to Sail Without Clearance Papers. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. J. A. 240O The German Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. Tho Secretary of State to the Gorman Ambassador. 1915. Apr. 1 May 3 Asks why clearance papers were not given the German steamer Odrmrald and complains against the reckless action of the San Juan harbor author- ities. Submits statement of facts regarding the action of the German steamship Odenwald a.ad explains why she was refused clearance papers. Ill HI UST OF PAPERS. PART XI. Detention of the American Merchant Ship Seguranca. From and to whom. Tlie Secretary of State (o Ambassador Page (telegram). A-ibassador Page to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambaseador Page (telegram). Date. 1915 Apr. 9 Apr. 28 May 6 Subject. Instructs Embassy to inform Foreign Office that the Uuiled Slates, on behalf of owners of steamship Serjumncn, olijccts to detent iou of vessel. Says Foreign <)fli<'e stales that Scr/uruucn has been allowed to ])rorced, all consignees ha\ing agreed to receive goods through Netherlands Oversea Trust. Refers to above, and says Department does not ob- iei-t to consignment of American shipments to Netherlands Oversea Trust, but it does object to detention by British Government of noncontra- band shipments until roconsigned. Page. 117 117 117 PART XII. Detention of the American Ship Wico. No. Fiom and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. 191c . Instructs Embassy to ask release of Amerif-an sleam- 121 The Secretary of State to Ambassador Mar. 20 ship ll'iV'o. Page (telegram). Tlie Secretary of State to Minister 121 Mar. 20 Morris (telegram). Says British Foreign Office will release Wico, but 121 Ambassador Page to the Secretary of Api. 8 question of oil cargoes for Sweden will have to be State (telegram). reconsidered if German seizures continue. Refers to above, and sa-N's question of seizures of 121 The Secretary of State to Ambassador Apr. 12 American cargoes bv Germany is matter to be ad- Page (telegram). justed by United States and Germany. Transmits note from Foreign Office relative to seizure 122 1412 Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State. May 18 of Wico, and giving views of British Govern"ient regarding seizure of neutral vessels. The British Secretary of State for May 16 Explains detention of American steamship Wico... 122 Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Page. PART XIII. Internment of the German Ship Prinz Eitel Friedrich. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. The Secretary of State to the Secre- 1915. Mar. IS Transmits copv of note sent to the German Ambas- tary of the Navy. sador regardin^proposed repairs to the German warship Prinz Ettel. The Secretary of State to the German Mar. 18 Says the Prinz Ei'el will be allowed until April 7th to coraplete rejiairs and leave the territorial waters of tho United States. 125 Ambassador. Memorandum to the British Erdbassy . Mar. 29 Says instructions have been given for the Prinz 'Eitel to observe the rule not to leave port until 24 hours after the departure of an enemy merchant ship. Exjiresses appreciation for courtesies accorded to the 125 J.2578 The German Ambassador to tho Sec- Apr. 8 125 retary of State. Prinz Eitel while at Newport News. PART XIV. Internment of the German Cruiser Kronprinz Wilhelm. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. J. A. 2G81 The German Ambassador to the Secre- tary of Slate. The Secretary of Stale to the Secre- tary of the Treasury. 1915. Apr. 12 Apr. 21 Asks permission for the German warship Kronprinz Wilhelm to land at the Ne^vport News shipyard for repairs. Transmits copy of note to the German Ambassador relati\'0 to tho request that permission bo given to the German warship Kronprinz Wilhelm to undergo repairs at Newport News. 129 129 10 LIST OF PAPERS. PART XV. Detention of August Piepenbrink. No. From and to wliom. Date. Subject. Page. Tlio Scrrotary of State to Viro Consul lUmily (lelegrain). 1914. Dec. 7 Tnstrticts Consulate to ask relca.se of August Picpeii- i:i:5 briuk taken from American vessel on high seas by French cruiser. Tlin SoiTotary of State to Ambassador Dec. 7 Instructs Erabiussv to ask rele;«*e of August Piepen- 133 Sharp (telegram). brink taken V)y P'ronch cruiser and held at Kings- ton by British authorities. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Dec. 7 Similar instruction as above sent to Embassy at 133 Page. 1915. London. .\mba.s,sador Page to the Secretary of Jan. 4 Says Foreign Office replying to above, says Piepen- 133 State (telegram). brink has not taken out liLs papers, is legally a German subject, and can not be released. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Mar. 2 Instructs Embassy to inform Foreign Office that 133 Page (telegram). Department considers Piepenbrink's removal from an American vessel on the high seas without The Secretary of State to Ambassador Mar. 2 legal justification and to again request his release. Sharp (telegram). Informs Embassy of above instruction, cites prece- dents, and directs that Piepenbrink's immediate release be requested. 134 298 Ambassador Sharp to the Secretary of State. Ambassador Page to the Secretary of Mar. 12 Reports communication of above to French Foreign Office. Says Foreign Office states that it has been decided to 135 IIGG Apr. G 136 State. release Piepenbrink as friendly act, while reserv- ing question of principle involved. 533 Ambassador Sharp to the Secretary of State. Apr. 21 Transmits Liote from French Foreign Office of same tenor as above. 136 PART XVI. Internment of the German Prize Ship Farn. No. 18 26 124 From and to whom. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. The British Ambassador to the Sec- retary of State. Date. 1915. Ja:;. 13 Jan. 17 Jan. 29 Feb. 26 Mar. 13 Mar. 26 Subject. I Pago. Says the vessel Farn, captured from the British and fljang German flag entered port of San Juaa on 12lli. Asks investigation ami detention of vessel. Refers to above and says British Government pre- sume that the United States will instruct author- ities at San Juan to act in conformity with Article 21 of Hague Convention. Says instructions have been given for the Farn to leave port of S.xn Juan within 24 hours or interne. Refers to above decision and says British Govern- ment thinks Article 21, No. 13, Hague Conven- tion, should be applied to vessel. Refers to above and says British Government has not ratified convention and that United States must adhere to decision to interne the steamship Farn. Says British Government would like to know to whom United Stxtes will turn over the Farn at end of war, and still contend that vessel should be released to British owTiers at once. 139 139 139 139 140 141 PART XVII. Non-contraband Character of Hydroaeroplanes. No. From and to whom. German Ambassador to Secretary of State. Secretary of State to German Am- bas.sador. Date. 1915. Jan. 19 Jan. 29 Subject. Makes protest against sale of hydroaeroplanes to belligerent States. Says Department does not consider aeroplanes or other aircraft as ves.sels of war. Page. 145 145 LIST OF PAPERS. PART XVIII. Dual Nationality. 11 From and to whom. The Secretary of State to Senator Lodge. Date. 1915. June 9 Subject. Advises liini relative to etatua of citizenship of I'go Da Prato, held in Italy for military service. Page. 1-19 PART XIX. Circular Instructions and Correspondence Relating to the Issuing cf Passports. From and to whom. The Secretary of State to American Diplomatic Officers. The Secretiiry of State to Ambassador Penfield (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassatlor Herrick (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (London) (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (Home) (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Willard (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister \\liitlock (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Droppers (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Van Dyke (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Schmedeman (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Morris (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Stovall (telegram). The Secretary of State to American Diplomatic Officers (telegram). The Secretary of State to Diplomatic and Consular Officers. Minister Whitlock to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Sharp (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page, London (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page, Rome (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Van Dyke (telegram). The Secretary of State to Minister Egan (telegram). The Secretary of State to American Diplomatic and Consular Officers. Passport Regulations Date. 19M. Aug. 1 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Sept. 12 Dec. 21 Dec. 30 1915 Jan. 7 Jan. 7 Jan. 7 Jan. 7 Jan. 7 Jan. 7 Fob. 8 Subject. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. .do. Page. Instruction relative to the issuance of emergency passports and the protection of Americans abroad. In.structed to advise Consular Officers that they may issue emergency passports. Same as above Says passports should be issued to native and natiu-al- ized American citizens only. Department's au- thorization to be obtained in doubtful cases. Instructions concerning the preparation of applica- tions for Departmental and emergency passports and issuance of latter. Asks that passports for travel in Belgium be denied, except in cases of necessity. Directs that passports for Belgium be denied appli- cants unless for Red Cross work, Belgian relief, or special exigency. Same as above .do. .do. .do. Transmits copy of rules governing the granting and issuing of passports in the United States. 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 156 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 156 PART XX. Correspondence Relating to Restraints on Commerce. From and to whom. The German Minister for Foreign Af- fairs to Ambassador Gerard. The German Minister for Foreign Af- fairs to Ambassador Gerard. Date. 1915. May 28 Juno 1 Subject. Page. Communicates reply of German Government to De- partment's note of May 15 protesting against Ger- man submarine warfare. Informs Embassy regarding investigation made by the German Government relative to the American steamers Guljlighl and Cushing. 169 170 12 No. LIST OF PAPEHS. PART XX— Continued. Correspondence Relating to Restraints on Commerce — Continued. From and to whom. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State (ad interim). The German MinLstor for Foreign Af- fairs to Ambassador Gerard. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Page (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State (telegram). Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State (telegram). Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State. Date. 1915 June ' 9 June 22 July 8 July 14 July 15 July 21 July 21 July 31 July 31 Subject. Transmits note for commimi^ation to the German Government regarding the adoption of measures for the safeguarding of Amcriran lives and ehii)S. Transmits text of memorandum from British Foreign Office relative to the detention of American car- goes bound for neutral ports. Communicates reply of German Government to De- partment's note protesting against German sub- marine warfare. Instructs Embassy to communicate to British Gov- ernment views of United States regarding prize- court proceedings. Instructs Embassy to protest against seizure by British Government of cargo of steamship Ncches sailing from Rotterdam. Transmits for communication to German Govern- ment reply to Foreign Office note of July 8 rela- tive to Germany's submarine policy. Transmits text of reply from British _Foreign_ Office relative to complaints against British restrictions on commerce. Transmits note from British Foreign Office gi\'ing reasons for the detention of the cargo of the steam- ship Neches. Transmits note from British Foreign Office regarding the difference of views of the United States and Great Britain in the matter of prize-court pro- ceedings. Page. 171 173 175 177 177 178 179 181 181 PART XXI. Destruction of American Merchantman William P. Frye by the German Ship Prinz Eitel Friedrich. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State (telegram). The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard (telegram). 1915 June ' 7 June 24 July 30 Aug. 10 Transmits text of reply of the German Government in the Frye case. Instructed to inform Foreign Office that the United States objects to resorting to the Prize Court in Frye case, and to suggest settlement by direct dip- lomatic negotiations. Transmits text of note from German Foreign Office setting forth views of German Government in Frye case. Transmits note for presentation to the German Government regarding the claim for reparation for the sinking of the William P. Frye. 185 185 187 188 PART XXII. The Sale of Munitions of War to Belligerents. No. From and to whom. Date. Subject. Page. 1915. The Austro-Himgarian Minister for June 29 Asks that stei)S l)e taken regarding the traffic in | 193 Foreign Affairs to Ambassador munitions of war carried on between the United Penfield. States and the countries at w;ir w.ith Germany and Austria-Hungary. 846 The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield. Aug. 12 Instructed to inform Austro-Hungarian Govern- ment relative to the attitude of the United States regarding exportation of arms and ammunition to belligerent nations. 194 PART I. PROCLAMATIONS OF NEUTRALITY. AND PAPERS RELATING TO NEUTRALITY. 13 NEUTRALITY-ITALY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. By the President of the United States of America, A PROCLAMATION. Whereas a state of war unhappilj'^ exists between Italy and Austria-Hungarj' ; And Wliereas the United States is on terms of friendship and amity with the contending powers, and with the persons inhabiting their several dominions ; And Wliereas there are citizens of the United States residing within the territories or dominions of each of the said belligerents and carrying on commerce, trade, or other business or pursuits therein; And Whereas there are subjects of each of the said belligerents residing within the ter- ritory or jurisdiction of the United States, and carrying on commerce, trade, or other business or pursuits therein; And ^Vllereas the laws and treaties of the United States, without interfering with the free expression of opinion and sympathy, or with the commercial manufacture or sale of arms or munitions of war, nevertheless impose upon all persons who may be within their territory and jurisdiction the duty of an impartial neutrality during the existence of the contest; And ^^^lereas it is the dut}' of a neutral government not to permit or suffer the making of its waters subsei"vient to the purposes of war; Now, Therefore, I, Woodrow WUson, President of the United States of America, in order to preserve the neutrahty of the United .Slates and of its citizens and of persons Avithin its ter- ritory and jurisdiction, and to enforce its laws and treaties, and in order that all persons, being warned of the general tenor of the laws and treaties of the United States in this behalf, and of the law of nations, may thus be prevented from any violation of the same, do hereby declare and proclaim that by certain provisions of the act approved on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1909, commonly known as the "Penal Code of the United States" the following acts are for- bidd(^n to be done, under severe penalties, witliin the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, to wit: 1. Accepting and exerciidng a commission to serve either of the said belligerents by land or by sea against the other belligerent. 2. Enlisting or entering into the service of either of the said belligerents as a soldier, or as a marine, or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer. 3. lliring or retaining another person to enlLst or enter himself in the service of either of the said belligerents as a soldier, or as a marine, or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or privateer. 4. Hiring another jjerson to go beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted as aforesaid . 5. niring another person to go beyond the limits of the United States with intent to be entered into ser\-ice as aforesaid . 0. Ptetaining another person to go beyond the limits of tlie United States with intent to be enlisted as aforesaid. 7. Retaining another person to go beyond the limits of the United States with intent to be entered into service as aforesaid. (But the said act is not to be construed to extend to a citizen or subject of either belligerent who, being transiently within the United States, shall, on board of any vessel of war, wliich, at the time of its arrival within the Ur.ited States, was fitted and equipped as such vessel of war, enlist or enter himself or hire or retain another subject or citizen of the same belUgerent, who is transiently within the United States, to enlist or enter himself to serve such IjcUigerent on board such vessel of war, if the United States shall then be at peace with such belligerent. 8. Fitting out and arming, or attempting to fit out and arm, or procuring to be fitted out and armed, or knowingly beir.g concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the serA-ice of either of the .said belligerents. 9. Issuing or delivering a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States for any ship or vessel to the intent that she may be employed as aforesaid. 10. Increasing or augmenting, or procuring to be increased or augmented, or knowingly being concerned in increasing or augmenting, the force of any ship of war, cruiser, or other armed vessel, which at the time of her arrival within the United States was a ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of either of the said belligerents or belonging to the subjects of either, by adding to the number of guns of such vessels, or by changing those on board of her for guns of a lai^er calibre, or by the addition thereto of any equipment solely applicable to war. 1 l'roclamation.s, declaring and enjoining neutrality, ot lilto purport, vero issued as follows: Austria-Hungary and Scrvia, Germany and Russia- Germany and France, .\ugust 4, 1914; Germany and Great Britain, Augiist 5, 1914; Austria-Hungary and Russia, August 7, 1914; Great Britain and Austria-Hinigary, August 13, 1914; France and Austria-Hungary, August 14, 1914; Belgium and Gwmany, August is, 1914; Japan and Ger- many. August 24, 1914; Japan and Austria-Hungary, August 27, 1914; Belgium and Austria-Hungary, Septemlior 1, 1914; Great ijritam and Viirkey, November 6, 1914; Italy and Turltey, August 23. 1915. 15 16 NEUTRALITY TROCLAMATIONS. 11. Beginning; or setting on foot or jiroviding or proparing the means for any military expedition or enterprise to be carrioil on from the teiTilory or jurLsiliction of the United States against the territories or dominions of either of the said belligerents. And I do hereby further dechiro and proclaim that any frequenting and use of the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States by the armed vessels of a belligerent, whether public ships or privateers, for the purpose of preparing for hostile operations, or as posts of observation \ipon the ships of war or privateers or merchant vessels of a beUigerent lying within or being about to enter the jurisdiction of the United States, must be regarded as unfriendly and offensive, and in violation of that neutrahty wliich it is the determination of this government to observe; and to the end that the hazard and. inconvenience of such appre- hended practices may be avoided, I further proclaim and declare that from and after the twenty-fifth day of May instant, and during the continuance of the present hostihtics, no ship of war or privateer of any belligerent shall be permitted to make use of any port, harbor, road- stead, or other watere within the jurisdiction of the United States as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose or for the purpose of obtaining any facihties of warlike equipment; and no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted to sail out of or leave any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from wliich a vessel of an opposing beUigerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant ship) shall have previously departed, untU after the expiration of at least twenty- four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. If any ship of war or privateer of a belligerent shall, after the time this notifi- cation takes effect, enter any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather or of her requir- ing provisions or tilings necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or for repairs; in any of which cases the authorities of the port or of the nearest port (as the case may be) shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supphes beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel wliich may have been permitted to remain within the waters of the United States for the purpose of repair shall continue within such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel, whether sliip of war, privateer, or merchant ship of an opposing belligerent, shall have departed therefrom, in wliich case the time hmited for the dejjarture of such ship of war or privateer shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secm'e an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of anj^ ship of war, privateer, or merchant ship of an opposing belligerent which may have previously quit the same port, harbor, roadstead, or waters. No ship of war or privateer of a beUigerent shaU be detained in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States more than twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of more than one vessel of an opposing beUigerent. But if there be several vessels of opposing beUigerents in the same port, harbor, roadstead, or waters, the order of their departure therefrom shaU be so arranged as to afford the opportimity of leaving alter- nately to the vessels of the opposing beUigerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war or privateer of a beUigerent shaU be permitted, while in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other tilings as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without any sad power, to the nearest port of her owm comitry; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propeUed by steam power, then with half the quan- tity of coal which she would be entitled to receive, if dependent upon steam alone, and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer in the same or any other port, har- bor, roadstead, or waters of the United States, without special permission, imtU after the expi- ration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last suppUed to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war or privateer shall, since last thus supphed, have entered a port of the government to which she belongs. And I do further declare and proclaim that the statutes and the treaties of the United States and the law of nations aUko r<>quire that no person, within the terriory and jurisdiction of the United States, shaU take part, directly or indu-ectly, in the said wars, but shall remain at peace with all of the said belligerents, and shaU maintain a strict and impartial neutrality. And I do hereby enjoin uU citizens of the United States, and aU persons residing or being within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, to observe tlie laws thereof, and to commit no act contrary to the provisions of the said statutes or treaties or in violation of the law of nations in that behalf. NEUTRALITY ritOCI.AMATIONS. 17 And I do horcbjr warn all cilizcns of tlio I'nllcd S(al(>s, and all jK-rsons residing or being within its territory or jurisdiction (hat, while tlie free and full expression of sjTiipathies in pid)lic and private is not restricted by the laws of the United States, military forces in aid of a bellig- erent <',an not lawd'uUy be originated or organized within its jurisdiction; and (hat, whdo all persons may lawfully and without restriction ])y rcastju of the aforesaid static of war manufac- ture and sell within the United States anns and munitions of war, and other articles ordinarily known as "contraband of war," yet they can not carry such articles upon the high seas for the use or ser\-ice of a belligerent, nor can thej^ transport soldiers and ofTK'ers of a belligerent, or attemj)t to break any blockade which may be lawfully established and mamtained during the said ware without incurring the risk of liostile capture and the penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf. And I do hereby give noti<;e that all citizens of the United States and others who may claini the protection of this government, who may misconduct themselves in the premises, will do so iit their peril, and that the}^ can in no wise obtain any protection from the government, of the United States against the consequences of their misconduct. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington this twenty-fourth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hunched and fifteen and of the independence of the Unit and used exclusively as a hospilal sliip. Rule 3. A vessel of war of a belligerent , or a vessel falling umler Rule 2 which is comniaiided by an officer of the military fleet, shall only be permitted to pass through the Canal after her coniinaudiiig ofTicer has given written assurance to the Authorities of the Panama Canai that the Rules and Regulations will bo faithfully observed. The authorities of the Panama Canal shall take such steps as may be requisite to insure the observance of the Rules and Regulations by vessels falling under Rule 2 which are not commanded by an officer of the military fleet. Rule 4- Vessels of war of a belligerent and vessels falling under Rule 2 shall not revictual nor take any stores in the Canal except so far as may bo strictly necessary; and the transit of such vessels through the Canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the Canal Regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service. Prizes shall be in all respects subject to the same Rules as vessels of war of the belligerents. Rule 5. No vessel of war of a belligerent or vessel faUing under Rule 2 shall receive fuel or lubricants while within the territorial waters of the Canal Zone, except on the written authoriza- tion of the Canal Authorities, specifying the amount of fuel and lubricants which may be received. Rule 6. Before issuing any authorization for the receipt of fuel and lubricants by any vessel of war of a belligerent or vessel falling under Ride 2, the Canal Authorities shall obtain a Avritten declaration, Avlj signed by the officer commanding such vessel, stating the amount of fuel and lubricants already on board. Rule 7. Supplies will not bo furnished by the Government of the United States, cither directly, or indirectly tlirough the intervention of a corporation, or otherwise, to vessels of war of a belligerent or vessels falling under Rule 2. If furnished by private contractors, or if taken from vessels under the control of a belligerent, fuel and lubricants may be taken on board vessels of war of a belligerent or vessels falling under Rule 2, only upon permission of the Canal Authorities, and then only in such amounts as wUl enable them, with the fuel and luliricants already on board, to reach the nearest accessible port, not an enemy port, at which they can obtain supplies necessary for the continuation of the voyage. The amounts of fuel and lubricants so received wiU be deducted from the amounts otherwise allowed in the ports under the jurisdiction of the United States during any time within a period of three months thereafter. Provisions furnished by contractors may be supplied o:dy upon permission of the Canal Authorities, and then only in amount sufficient to bring up their supplies to the peace standard. Rule 8. No belligerent shall embark or disembark ti-oops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the Canal, except in case of necessity due to accidental hindrance of the transit. In such cases the Canal Authorities shall be the judge of the necessity, and the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch. Rule 9. Vessels of war of a belligerent and vessels faUing under Rule 2 shall not remain in the ten-itorial waters of the Canal Zone inuler the jurisdiction of the United vStates longer than twenty-four hours at any one time, except in case of distress; and in such case, shall dc])art as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within twenty-four hom-s from the departure of a vessel of an opposing belligerent. The twenty-four houre of this rule shall be construed to be twenty-four hours in addition to the time necessarily occupied in passing through the Canal. Rule 10. In the exercise of the exclusive right of the United vStates to provide for the regulation and management of the Canal, and in order to ensure that the Canal shall be kept free and open on terms of entire equality to vessels of commerce and of war, there shiill not be, except by special arrangement, at any one time a greater number of vessels of war of any one nation, includuig those of the allies of a belligerent nation, than three in either terminal port and its adjacent terminal waters, or than three in transit through the Canal; nor shall the total number of such vessels, at an}' one time, exceed six in all the territorial waters of the Canal Zone midcr the jurisdiction of the United States. Rule 11. Wlien vessels of war or vessels falling under Ride 2, belonging to or employed by opposing belligerents, are present simultaneously in the waters of the Canal Zone, a period of not less than twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure of the vessel belonging to or employed by one belligerent and the departure of the vessel belongmg to or employed by his adversary. The order of departure is determined by order of arrival, unless the vessel which arrived fii'st is so circumstanced that an extension of her stay is permissible. 20 PPF.VENTTON OK TUF, VIOLATIONS OF NErTKAIITV. A vcssol of war of a 1)cHissel shall depart or attempt to depart from the jurisdiction of the United States without clearance for any of the purposes above set forth, the owner or master or person or persons having charge or conunand of such vessel shall severally be liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $10,000, or to imprisonment not to exceed two years, or both, and, in addition, such vessel shall be forfeited to the United States. That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and empowered to employ sucli part of the land or naval forces of the United States as shall be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution. That the provisions of this resolution shall be deemed to extend to all land and water, continental or insular, within the jmisdiction of the United States. Approved, March 4, 1915. PART II. VIOLATIONS OF NEUTRALITY— PANAMA CANAL. 21 VIOLATIONS OF NEUTRALITY-PANAMA CANAL. File No. 763.72111/1223. The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. No. 432.] British Embassy, Washington, December IS, 1914- Sir: For some days past the press of this country has reported various incidents of the violation of neutrality of the Panama Canal of which British ships have heon accused and the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone has, it is stated, ])C('n obliged to ask for an armed force in order to put a stop to these violations. Although I have received no official representations from you, sir, I thought it well to request from the British representative in Panama a report on the subject in order that I miglit be in a position to discuss tiie juatter sliould it be brought officially to my attention. I now have the honour to state that I have to-day received an answer from Sir C. Mallet, the British Minister in Panama, which is to the following effect: Facts are as follows: The steamsliip Mallina, an Admiralty collier, arrived here from Acapulco without a bill of health from the American consul. She was in consequence indicted for a violation of the quarantine regulations of the Canal Zone. A nominal fine of $50 was imposed on her by the Court. At Balboa the Master of the Mallina was ordered to sea early next morning and notified the port captain accordingly. Clearance papers were ready, but it appears that the master had expected that they would be sent to him together with some stores which he had orilered from the comnusariat of the Canal. Neither the stores nor the clearance papers arrived. He thus had to choose between a violation of the customs law and a violation of neutrality. Of these two courses he thought the wiser course was to choose the former, and accordingly left without his clearance papers. It furthermore appears that the Mallina was accused by Hia Excellency Colonel Goetlials, the Gtovemor of the Panama Canal Zone, of lia\'ing u.sed her wireless installation witliin the limits of the Canal Zone and tlius liaving ^•iolatod the regulations governing the use of radio iiistnunenta in waters under American juri.>i)ortuiiily to set forth its attitude toward traffic in contraband of war by citizens of neutral countries. I take note, therefore, of your Govermnent's statement that "under the general prlticlples of international law no exception can bo taken to neutral States letting war material go to Germany's enemies from or through neutral territory," and that the adversaries of Germany in the present war are, in tho opinion of the Imperial Government, authorized to "draw from the United States contra- band of war, especially arms, worth several billions of marks." These principles, as you state, have been accepted by the United States Government in the statement issued by the Department on October 15 last, entitled "Neutrality and Trade in Contraband." Acting in 32 NEUTRAT.TTV VIOI ATTONS P.V WARSnTPS. cojiforinily with jiropositions there sot I'ortli tliis Govcrmncjit hiis itself taken no part in con- traband traffic and so far as possible has lent its influence toward equal treatment for all belligerents in the matter of pmrhasijig arms ajul ammunition in the United States. Complaint, however, appears to be made by the Imperial Gcrnaan Government of the refusal of clearance by American authorities to merchant vessels intending to furnish fuel and supplies to German warshij)s on the high seas or in neutral ports. In reply I desire to call to your attention that the GoA-ernment is not aware that any merchant vessel has been refused a clearance on these grounds during the present war, although certain temporary' detentions have been found to be necessaiy for the purpose of investigating the honajides of the alleged destinations of particular vessels and the mtentions of their o\\Tiers or masters. This has been done in an effort to carry out the principles of international law and the declaration of treaties with respect to coal supplies for belligerent warships and the use of neutral ports as bases of naval operations. iVlthough as a rule there is on the part of the nationals of neutral countries entire freedom of trade in arms, ammunition, and other articles of con- traband, nevertheless the Imperial Gennan Government will recall that international law and the treaties declaratory of its prmciples make a clear distinction between ordinary commerce m contraband of war and the occasional furnishing of warships at sea or in neutral ports. In this relation I venture to advert to Ai-ticles 18 to 20, inclusive, of Hague Convention No. 1.3, 1907. From these articles it will be observed that a warship which has received fuel m a port belonging to a neutral power may not withm the succeeding tliree months replenish her supply in a port of the same power. It is, I am sure, only necessary to call 5'our attention to these articles to make it perfectly clear that if a number of merchant vessels may at short intervals leave neutral ports with cargoes of coal for transshipment to belligerent warships at sea, regardless of when the warships last received fuel in the ports of the same neutral power, the conventional proliibition would be nulhfied, and the three montlis' rule rendered useless. By such practice a warship might remain on its station engaged in belUgerent operations without the mconvenience of repairing to port for fuel supplies. Furthermore, iiilicle 5, of the same Convention, forbids belligerents to use neutral ports and waters as a base of naval operations against their adversaries. As stated in the Depart- ment's statement on "Merchant Vessels Suspected of Carrymg SuppUes to Belligerent Ves- sels," dated September 19 last (a copy of which is enclosed),' the essential idea of neutral terri- tory becoming the base for naval operations by a beUigerent is in the opinion of tliis Gov- ernment repeated departure from such territory of merchant vessels laden with fuel or other supplies for belligerent warships at sea. In order to ascertain the vessels which are thus operating, the Government has been obliged to investigate certain cases in order that it might determine whether there have been or are al)out to be repetitions of such acts. But in all respects equality of treatment has been observed toward all merchant vessels suspected of carrying supplies to belligerent vessels. It is hardh' necessary to recount in this note the provisions of the Hague Conventions in regard to the fitting out or arming of vessels within the jurisdiction of a neutral power, or the stipulations in the same Conventions regarding the departure of vessels intended to cruise or engage m hostile operations which have been adopted entirely, or in part, for such use within neutral jurisdiction. To the extent of these restrictions the furuishuig of munitions of war included in absolute contraband is proliibited m neutral waters, and therefore should not be permitted indirectly by means of naval tenders, or merchant vessels acting as tenders, car- rying such materials from a neutral jurisdiction to belligerent wai-ships at sea. It is not necessary in fiu-ther reply to the memorandum of the Imperial German Govern- ment to advert in detail to other provisions of the Hague Conventions or to other ndes of international law, for no particidar cases have been adduced as a gromid for yoirr Government's complaint. If, however, they wdl specify the vessels which they must have in mind as having boon accorded luiequal treatment, the Department wiU be glad to give further consideration to the memorandum of j^om- Government in the light of actual facts. It is then sufficient to say for the present that in the pursuance of the policy to carry out the principles above referred to, which is part of the progi'am of this Government to preserve and maintain the neutrality of the United States, aU merchant vessels suspected of caiTying sui)phes to ])elligorent warships at sea have been subjected, and wiU continue to bo subjected, to mixemitting and painstaking investigation. Such action can not, it is believed, 1)0 fairly taken to amoiuit to "unequal treatment of the beUigcrents and constitute a breach of the generally accoiited rules of neutrahty to Germany's detriment." Accept, etc., W. J. Bryan. 1 See Part IV, p. 44. NEUTRALITY VIOLATIONS BY WARSHIPS. 33 File No. 763.72111/1942. Tlie British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. British Embassy, Washington, March 2^th, 1916. Dear Mr. Secretary: Refen-ing to unofficial correspondence wliich has taken place concerning the British cruisers in the North Atlantic, I beg to state that renewed orders have been issued impressing on Ills Majesty's Oflicers the duty of strictly observing the terms of the United States neutrality regulations. I am, etc., Cecil Spuing-Rice. File No. 763.72111/1942. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, March 27, 1915. My Dear Mr. Ambassador: I have received your informal note of tlie 24th instant con- cerning the observance of the American neutrality regulations by the British cruisers in the North Atlantic. In this relation I desire to call to your attention certain information which has come to my notice with reference to the operations of belligerent cruisers in the North Pacific. I have been reliably informed that several times during the past winter belligerent ships of war have taken on coal, and perhaps other supphes, within the territorial waters of the United States in the vicinity of the islands off the Santa Barbara channel, southern Cali- fornia, and have had communication with the mauiland in this locality. One circumstance in particular occmred, according to my information, on the 27th of February last, when the British steamship Bellerophon, of Liverpool, coaled the British cruiser Rainbow within a mile of the wes^jcrn shore of Anacapa Island. It appears that at the same time a launch left the vicinity of Huencme, Cal., and commmiicated with the vessels above mentioned. I should appreciate the kindness if you will bring this matter informally to the attention of your Govern- ment, and, if the facts, upon examination, prove to be as represented, request your Government to issue such instructions to their fleet as will make a recurrence of such violations of the neu- trality of the territorial waters of the United States impossible. I am, etc., For the Secretary of State: Robert Lansing. File No. 763.72111/1892. The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. British Embassy, Washington, March 29, 1915. My Dear Mr. Secretary: I beg to acknowledge your mformal letter of the 27th instant, in which you bring to my attention certain information in your possession relative to the opera- tions of British warships in the Pacific and in particular the report that the British steamship Bellerophon coaled His Majesty's Ship Rainbow on the 27th of February within a mUe of Anacapa Island. I am bringing this matter at once to the attention of my Government and shall take pleasure in communicating further with you upon the subject as soon as I am in a position to do so. I am, etc., Cecil Spring-Rice. File No. 763.72111/1966. The British Ambassador to the Counselor. British Embassy, Washington, April 5th, 1915. Dear Mr. Counselor: In view of rumours circulated in the German press as to British cruisers systematically provisioning themselves from United States territory — notably New York — I beg to quote for j^our information the following extract from a letter of the Admiral in Command of the North American Station dated March 26 : Except on the one occasion in September la.st, which formed the basis of the complaint referred to in your telegrani, I am sati.sfied that no attempt lias been made to order aaythlng from United States territory, and I would point out that apart from the fact that the provisioning of His Majesty's ehips off New York is rendered quite unnecessary by 455C°— 15 3 34 NEUTRAUTY VIOLATIONS BY WARSHIPS. their being regularly relieved, the obtaining of supplies in such a manner is open to two strong objections from a naval point of view, viz: (1) The amount of provisions required to be of any use would be so large that they could hardly l)e embarked undetected, and it would take a considerable time to transfer them at sea. (2) In wintry weather such a transfer would often be a matter of difficulty and not worth the risk to men and boats. I can not but think the United States Navy Department are alive to these considerations. I am, etc., Cecil Speingi-Rice. PART IV. DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT AND THE RIGHT OF DEPARTURE FROM NEUTRAL PORTS OF BELLIGERENT MERCHANT SHIPS TO ARM AT SEA. 35 DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT AND THE RIGHT OF DEPARTURE FROM NEUTRAL PORTS OF BELLIGERENT MERCHANT SHIPS TO ARM AT SEA. File No. 763.72111/85. The British Charge to the Secretary of State. No. 252.] British Embassy, Washington, August 4, 1914. Sir: In view of the stato of war now existing between Great Britain and Germajiy, I have the honour, under iastruetions from His Majesty's Principal vSecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to make the following communication to you in respect to the arming of any merchant vessels in neutral waters. As you are aware it is recognized that a neutral Government is bound to use due diligence to proliihit its subjects or citizens from the building and fitting out to order of belligerents vessels intended for warlike purposes and also to prevent the departure of any such A'essel from its jurisdiction, llio starting point for the universal recognition of this principle was the three rules formulated in Article VI of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America for the amicable settlement of all causes of differences between the two countries, signed at Washington on May 8, 1871. These rules, which His Majesty's Government and the United States Government agreed to observe as between themselves in future, are as follows: A neutral Government is bound — First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, -within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use. Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in [its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its juri.sdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. The above rules may be said to have acquired the force of generally recognized rules of International Law, and the first of them is reproduced almost textuaUy in Article VIII of The Hague Convention Numl)cr 13 of 1907 concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in case of Maritime Warfare, the principles of which have been agreed to by practically every maritime State. It is known, however, that Germany, with whom Great Britain is at war, favours the policy of converting her merchant vessels into armed ships on the High Seas, and it is probable, there- fore, that attempts wUl ])e made to equip and despatch merchantmen for such conversion from the ports of the United vStates. It is probable that, even if the final completion of the measures to fit out merchantmen to act as crusiers may have to be effected on the High Seas, most of the preliminary arrangements will have been made before the vessels leave port, so that the warlike purpose to which they are to be put after leaving neutral waters must be more or less manifest before their departure. In calling your attention to the above mentioned "Rules of the Treaty of Washington" and The Hague Convention, I have the honour to state that His Majesty's Government will accordingly hold the United States Government responsible for any damages to British trade or shipping, or itijin-y to British interests generally, which may be caused by such vessels having been equipped at, or departing from. United States ports. I have, etc., CoLviLLE Barclay. File No. 763.72111/87. The British Charge d' Affaires to the Secretary of State. No. 259.] British Embassy, Washington, August 9, 1914. Sir: With reference to my note No. 252 of the 4th instant, I have the honour to inform you that I have now received instructions from Sir Edward Grey to make a further communi- cation to you in explanation of the position taken by His Majesty's Government in regard to the question of armed merchantmen. 37 38 DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. As you are no doubt aware, a certain number of British merchant vessels are armed, but this is a precautionary measure adopted solely for tlie purpose of defence, which, under existing rules of international law, is the right of all merchant vessels w^hen attacked. According to the British nile, British merchant vessels can not be converted into men-of-war in any foreign port, for the reason that Great Britain does not admit the right of any Power to do this on the High Seas. The duty of a neutral to intern or order the immediate departure of belligerent vessels is limited to actual and potential men-of-war, and, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, there can therefore be no right on the part of neutral Governments to intern British armed merchant vessels, which can not be converted into men-of-war on the High Seas, nor to require them to land their guns before proceeding to sea. On the other hand, the German Government have consistently claimed the right of conver- sion on the High Seas, and His Majesty's Government therefore maintain their claim that vessels which are adapted for conversion and under German rules may be converted into men-of- war on the High Seas should be interned in the absence of binding assurances, the responsi- bility for which must be assumed by the neutral Government concerned, that they shall not be so converted. I have, etc., CoLviLLE Barclay. FUe No. 763.72111/543. The British Charge to the Secretary of State. No. 264.] British Embassy, Wasltington, August 12, 1914. Sir : With reference to my notes Nos. 252 and 259 of August 4 and August 9, respectively, stating and explainmg the position taken up by His Majesty's Government in regard to the question of armed merchantmen, I have the honour to state that I have now been informed by Sir Edward Grey that exactly similar histructions were at the same time issued by him to His Majesty's representatives m practically all neutral countries to address the same commu- nications to the respective Governments to which they were accredited. I have, etc., CoLviLLE Barclay. File No. 763. 72111/85. The Secretary of State to the British Charge cf Affaires. Department of State, Washington, August 19, 1914. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication Xo. 252 of the 4th instant, which was made to this Government in pursuance of instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with respect to the arming of merchant vessels in neutral waters. Tlie commimication states the principles of neutraJity, as contained m the treaty signed at Washington on May 8, 1871, by representatives of the United States and Great Britain, and reproduced, as you say, almost textually in Article YIII of Tlie Hague Convention, signed October 18, 1907, concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in case of Maritime Warfare, the principles of which have been, as you state, agreed to by practically every maritime power. The communication next considers the question of conversion of enemy merchantmen on the high seas, a policy which your Government opposes. It is then stated that Germany favoi-s the pohcy of conversion; that it will probably attempt to use the ports of the United States to equip and despatch merchantmen for conversion from such ports; and that most of the prehminary arrangements leading to conversion will have to be made withm neutral ports before the vessels proceed to the high sejis to complete their transformation mto vessels of war. The purpose of the communication is apparently to lay dowai the principles of law which your Government beheve should be applied by the United States in fulfiUiug its neutral obh- gations, especially m the matter of conversion of merchant vessels into wju* vessels, and, assum- ing these principles to be correct, to tax this Government with damages to British trade or shipping, or injury to British interests generally, if these prmciples, the correctness of which you assume, are not appUed to German merchant vessels '"equipped at, or departhig from. United States ports." In a(;knowledging this communication, it does not seem appropriate to enter into any dis- cussion as to what may or what may not be the pohcy of Germany in the matter of converting DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. 39 its merchant ships, which may bo within the jurisdiction of tho United States, into ships of war after they have loft American ports and have reached tlie high seas. The assertion of the right so to coTivort morcliant sliips upon the high seas, made by Gennany at Tho Second Hague Conference and maintained at the Loudon Naval Conference, does not of itself indicate an inten- tion on the part of the Gennan Govoriunont to exercise this right, and this Department does not feel justified in its correspoudonco with foreign govi^niinents, to assume, in the absence of specific uiformation, an intention on tho part of Germany so to do. Tlie Department will, however, carefully examine the facts and 'circumstances of any particular case when it is called to its attention. Tlie question of the place where the belligerent right of conversion ma)' bo exercised, difficult in itself, is complicated by the fact that there has been a difTerence of opinion among the maritime states parties to the present war, luul that at tlio conferences, to which reference has been made, the British delegatit)n stated that tliero was no rule of uaternational law on the question. Germany and Austria-Hungary insisted at the conferences upon the right to convert merchant vessels upon the high seas. France juid Russia, allies of Great Britain m the present war, likewise insistetl upon the right so to convert. Great Britam and Belgium intimately associated with France and Russia in the prosecution of hostilities against Germany and Austria-Hungary, opposed the right of conversion on the high seas at Tlie Second Hague Conference, where both these nations were represented; and at the London Naval Conference, to which Belgium was not invited and in which it did not participate. Great Britain maintained its previous attitude. It is thus seen that the right to convert merchant vessels upon the high seas was asserted in international conferences by four of the maritime countries now at war and that two of the maritime nations now at war opposed this contention. It is further seen that the maritime nations at war with Gennany and Austria-Hungary are evenly divided on this question. At Tlie Second Hague Conference, the British delegation, opposing conversion on the high seas, stated that there was no rule of international law on the question; that in its carefully prepared memorandum presented to the Powers invited to the London Naval Conferejice, the British Government held that "no general practice of nations has prevailed in the past on this point from which any principles can be deduced and formulated as the established rules of international law. So far as can be ascertained there are no precedents on the subject." In the official report of the conference, drafted by Mr. Renault, it is stated that agreement on conversion upon the high seas was impossible; and, in the report of the British delegates to their Government, it is said : We were met with a refu.sal to make any concessions or to abate one jot from the claim to the absolutely unfettered exercise of the right, wliich its advocates vijidicate as a rule forming part of the existing law of nations. In these circumstances we felt that we liad no option but to decUne to admit the right, and the result is tliat the question remains an open one. It is obvious that the subject of conversion must be carefully examined and considered, and, in view of these circumstances, it is deemed by the Department of State inexpedient to declare a policy as to what measures it wUl take iii a contingency which has not yet arisen, and that it may well content itself, in so far as this matter is concerned, with an acknowledg- ment of your note. In the com-se of yoiir communication it is stated as recognized " that a neutral Government is bomid to use due diligence to prohibit its subjects or citizens from the building or fitting out to the order of belligerents vessels intended for warlike purposes and also to prevent the departure of such vessels from its jurisdiction." It is asserted in this connection that "the starting point for the universal recognition of this principle was the three rules formtdatod in Article VI of the Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America for the amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two coimtries, signed at Wasliington on May 8, 187L" After quoting the Three Rides of Washington, the note thus contmues: The above rules may be said to liave acquired the force of generally recognized rules of international law, and the first of them is reproduced almost textually in Article VIII of the Hague Convention Nimiber 13 of 1907 concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in case of maritime warfare, the principles of which have been agreed to by practically e\cry maritime State. As the communication apparently lays great stress on the expr&ssion "due dihgence," contained in the Treaty of Washington, it is believed material to the present occasion to quote the folloMnng defhiition of it, contauied in the Geneva Award of 1872: Tlie "due diligence " referred to in the first and third of the said rules ought to bo exercised by neutral Govern- ments in exact pro[)ortinn to tlie risks to which either of tlie belligerents may be exposed, from a failure to fulfill the obUgadous of neutrality on their part. 40 DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. Tho expression "duo diligence" was contained in the draft submitted l)y the British delegation to Tlio Second Hague Conference, upon whi<;h Article VIII was based. Article VIII as finally adopted is as follows: Article VIII. A neutral Government is bound to employ tho means at its disposal to prevent tlie fitting out or arming of any vessel within its jurisdiction wliich it has reason to believe is intended to cniL*e, or engage in hostile, operations against a Power with wliicli tliat Government is at peace. It is alao bound to display the same vigilance to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, which liad been adapted entirely or partly witlnin tlie said jurisdiction for use in war. As the expression "due diligence" was considered obscure, it was rejected, as the learned reporter of the convention, Mr. Louis Renault, says in the elaborate report which accompanies the convention, and which is, in accordance with the practice of international conferences, to be considered as the official and authoritative interpretation of the convention which it explains, justifies, and interprets. "The expression of due diligence," he says, "which has become cele- brated by its obscurity since its solenui interpretation, was rejected. The convention merely requires in the first instance (On se contente de dire d'dbord) that the neutral is hound to employ the means at its disposal * * * then, to display the same vigilance." It is to be presumed that Article VIII which "reproduced almost textually" the first rule of the Treaty of Washington, is to be interpreted in the sense in which Mr. Renault's report shows it to have been adopted, especially as Great Britain and the United States have ratified the convention without any objection or reservation as to Article VIII thereof. It seems obvious therefore that by neither the terms nor the interpretation of the pro- visions of the treaties on this point is the United States bound to assume the attitude of an insurer. Consequently the United States disclaims as a correct statement of its responsibihty the assertion in your note that "His Majesty's Government wiU accordingly hold the United States Government responsible for any damages to British trade or shipping, or injury to British interests generally, which may be caused by such vessels having been equipped at, or departing from, United States ports." The United States has always looked upon the Three Rules of Washington as declaratory of international law, and as the necessary and natural consequences of the doctrine of neutrality, proclaimed and enforced by the United States since the wars of the French Revolution, to which Great Britam was a party. The Three Rules can, in the opinion of this Government, only be considered as the starting point of the doctrine of that degree of diUgence which a neutral should observe in the sense that its recognition by Great Britain in an important inter- national controversy called marked attention to an existing doctrine, and fiu"nished an incentive to its incorporation and definition in the Hague Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in case of maritime warfare. The United States, since the earliest days of its existence, has been as solicitous of its neutral duties as of its neutral rights, and, without further consideration of your communication at this time I request you to state to your Government that there is no reason to anticipate that the United States will be less mindful of its duties or of its rights as a neutral m the present case than it has been in the past. I have, etc., W. J. Bkyan. File No. 763.72111/87. The Secretary of State to the British Charge. Department of State, Washington, August 20, 1914- Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication No. 259 of the 9th instant, made to the Department of State under instructions from Sir Edward Grey, in regard to the question of armed merchantmen, informing this Government that a certain number of the British merchant vessels are armed as a precautionary measure for the purpose of defense, and maintaining that such merchant vessels can not be considered as vessels of war or subjected to the treatment properly accorded to vessels of the latter category in neutral ports. In the last paragraph of this communication, you call attention to the right claimed by the German Government, in accordance with its rules, to convert its merchant vessels upon the high seas into vessels of war, and the communication states the contention of the British Government that the neutral Government concerned is taxed with responsibihty if it does not intern such vessels, in the absence of binding assurances that they will not be converted into men-of-war on the high seas. DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. 41 Tlie Department of State acknowledges williout commont the statement of British policy in such niattera and also the British understanding of Germany's intentions and ])oIicy, but as to the responsibility of the United States in the premises, you are referred to Department's note of the 19th instant replying to your note No. 252 of the 4th instant. I have, etc. For the Secretary of State: Robert Lansing. File No. 763.72111/88. The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. No. 289.] British Embassy, Washington, August 25, 1914. Sir: With reference to Mi-. Barclay's notes Nos. 252 and 259 of the 4th and 9th of August, respectively, fully explaining the position taken up by His Majesty's Government in regard to the question of armed merchantmen, I have the honour, in view of the fact that a num})or of British armed merchantmen will now be visiting United States ports, to reiterate that the arming of British merchantmen is solely a precautionary measure adopted for the purpose of defence against attack from hostile craft. I have at the same time been instructed by His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the United States Government the fullest assurances that British mer- chant vessels will never be used for purposes of attack, that they are merely peaceful traders armed only for defence, that they will never fire unless first fired upon, and that they will never under any circumstances attack any vessel. I have, etc. Cecil Spring-Rice. File No. 763.72111/88. The Secretary of State to the British Ambassador. Department of State, yVasMngton, August 29, 1914- Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 25th instant in which, referring to previous correspondence, you state that, in view of the fact that a number of Britisli armed merchantmen will now be visiting United States ports, you desirei to reiterate that the arming of British merchantmen is solely a precautionary measure adopted for the purpose of defence against attack from hostile craft. You add that you have been instructed by His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the Government of the United States the fullest assurances that British merchant vessels will never bo used for pur- poses of attack, that they are merely peaceful traders armed only for defence, that they will never fire unless first fired upon, and that they will never imder any circumstances attack any vessel. I have, etc. W. J. Bryan. File No. 763.72111/144. The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. No. 302.] British Embassy, Washington, September 4, 1914. ■ Sir: I have the honour to inform you that at the request of your Department I drew the attention of my Government to tlio fact that two British merchant vessels — the Adriatic and the Meirion — were at present in United States ports, and that they were carrying guns — the former four and the latter six. I added that the fact of these vessels carrying guris was Ukely to lead to the raising of difficult questions as to the enforcement by the United States Government of the neutrality of American ports, although an assurance had been given that these gims would only be used for defensive purposes and in case the merchant vessels in ques- tion were attacked by an enemy ship when on a commercial voyage. I have now received a reply from Sir Edward Grey, in which he infoims me that His Majest/s Govenunent hold the view that it is not in accordance with neutrality and international law to detain in neutral ports merchant vessels armed with purely defensive armaments. But in view of the fact that the United States Government is detaining armed merchant vessels pre- pared for offensive warfare, and in order to avoid the difiicult questions of the character and degree of armament which would justify detention, His Majesty's Government have made 42 DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. arrangements for landing tlio guns of the Merrion, the Adr^tic having already sailed before the orders reached her. In the case of the latter ship, the passenger list and cargo had proved that she was proceeding to sea on ordinary cijmmcrcial business. These and other papers relative to the case will bo duly communicated to your Department. This action has been taken without prejudice to the general principle wliich His Majesty's Govenmient have enunciated and to which they adhere. It is presumed that no objection will be raised by your Government to the guns being shipped subsequently to England as cargo in some vessel without mountings or ammunition. I have, etc., Cecil Spring-Rice. File No. 763.72111/156. Memorandum from the British Embassy. British Embassy, Washington, September 7, 1914- The British Ambassador presents his compliments to the Secretary of State of the United States and, with reference to his note No. 302 of September 4, has the honour to state that he is informed by the British Consid General that the steamship Adriatic, which sailed from New York on September 3 with four guns mounted and 200 rounds of ammunition, took 28 first- class passengers, 43 second, and 89 third. She also took 637 bags of mail and a general cargo of provisions and manufactured goods. She had no war material on board and no army reservists. These data bear out the assurances that the Adriatic is bound on a peaceful commercial voyage and that her armament is dsstined solely for defensive purposes. File No. 763.72111/410. Memorandum from the British Embassy. British Embassy, Washington, September 9, 1914. The German Government have openly entered upon the policy of arming merchant ships as commerce destroyers and even claim the right to carry out the process of arming and equip- ping such merchant ships in neutral harbours or on the high seas. It is in consequence of tliis that the British Admiralty have been compelled, in accordance with the practice followed in the great wars of history, to arm a certain number of British merchant ships for self-defence only. The practice of arming ships in self-defence is very old and has been ordered by Royal proclamation in England from early in the seventeenth century. During the Napoleonic wars the right to arm in self-defence was recognized by British and United States Prize Courts in the cases of the Catherine Elizabeth (British) and the Nereide (United States). The right of a merchant ship of a belligerent to carry arms and resist capture is clearly and definitely laid down in modern times. The right of resistance of merchant vessels is recognized by the United States Naval War Code, by the Italian Code for Mercantile Marine, and by the Russian Prize Regulations. Writers of authority in many European countries also recognize the right. To mention a German authority, it may be stated that the late Dr. Perels, at one time legal adviser to the German Admiralty, quotes with approval Article 10 of the United States Naval War Code, wliich states "the prisoners of merchant vessels of an enemy who in self-defence and in protection of the vessel placed in their charge resist an attack, are entitled to the status of prisoners of war." The Institute of International Law at its meeting in 1913 prepared and adopted a manual of the laws of naval warfare, Article 10 of which expressly declared that private ships are allowed to employ force to defend themselves against the attack of an enemy's ship. A merchant vessel armed purely for seK-defence is therefore entitled under international law to enjoy the status of a peaceful trading ship in neutral ports and His Majesty's Govern- ment do not ask for better treatment for British merchant ships in this respect than might be accorded to those of other Powers. They consider that only those merchant ships which are intended for use as cruisers should bo treated as ships of war and that the question whether a particular ship carrying an armament is intended for offensive or defensive action must be decided by the simple criterion whether she is engaged in ordinary commerce and embarking cargo and passengers in the ordinary way. If so, there is no rule in international law that would justify such vessel even if armed being treated otherwise than as a peaceful trader. DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. 43 File No. 763.72111/411. Memorandum from the British Emhassy. British Embassy, Washington, September 9, 191Jf. In a memorandum of to-day's date the British Ambassador has set forth the groands upon which His Majostj^'s Government hokl that British merchant vessels which arc armed for defensive purposes only iire entitled to bo treated as peaceful trading vessels. In urging this view upon the consideration of the United States Government the British Ambassador is instructed to state that it is believed that German merchant vessels with offen- sive armament have escaped from American ports, especially from ports in South America to prey upon British commerce in spite of all the precautions taken. German cruisers in the Atlantic continue by one means or another to obtain ample supphes of coal shipped to them from neutral ports, and if the United States Government take the view that British merchant vessels which are bona fide engaged in commerce and carry guns at the stern only are not per- mitted purely defensive armament, unavoidal:)le injury may ensue to British interests and indirectly also to United States trade which wdl bo deplorable. File No. 763.72111/226a. Tlie Acting Secretary of State to the German Ambassador.^ Department of State, WasMngton, September 19, 1914. Dear Mr. ^Vmbassador: I am inclosing for your information two memoranda, which the Department b.as issued to-day and which define the general rules which this Government wiU follow in deahng with cases involving the status of armed merchant vessels visiting American ports, and with cases of merchant vessels suspected of carrying supphes to bcUigerent warships from American ports. I am, etc., Robert Lansing. [Inclosure 1.] THE STATUS OF ARMED MERCHANT VESSELS. A. A merchant vessel of belligerent nationalily may carry an armament and ammunition for the sole purpose of defense without acquiring the character of a ship of war. B. The ])rc8cnce of an armament and ammunition on board a merchant vessel creates a presumption that the armament is for offensive purposes, but the owners or agents may overcome this presumption by evidence showing that the vessel carries armament solely for defense. C. Evidence necessary to establish the fact that the armament is solely for defense and will not be used offensively, whether the armament be mounted or stowed below, must be presented in each case independently at an official inves- tigation. The result of the investigation must show conclusively that the armament is not intended for, and will not be used in, offensive operations. Indications that the armament will not be used offensively are: 1 . That the caliber of the guns carried does not exceed six inches. 2. That the guns and small arms carried arc few in number. 3. That no guns are mounted on the forward part of the vessel. 4. That the quantity of ammunition carried is small. 5. That the vessel is manned by its usual crew, and the officers are the same as those on board before war waa declared. 6. That the vessel intends to and actually does clear for a port lying in its usual trade route, or a port indicating its purpose to continue in the same trade in wlucli it was engaged before war was declared. 7. That the vessel takes on board fuel and supplies sufficient only to carry it to its port of destination, or the same quantity substantially which it has been accustomed to take for a voyage before war was declared. 8. That the cargo of the vessel consists of articles of commerce unsuited for the use of a ship of war in operations against an enemy. 9. That the vessel carries passengers who are a.s a whole unfitted to enter the military or naval service of the bel- ligerent whose flag the vessel flies, or of any of its allies, and particularly if the passenger list includes women and children. 10. That the speed of the ship is slow. D. Port authorities, on the anival in a port of the United States of an armed vessel of belligerent nationality, claiming to be a merchant vessel, should immediately investigate and report to Washington on the foregoing indications as to the intended use of the armament, in order that it may be determined whether tlie evidence is sufficient to re- move the presumption that tlie vessel is, and should be treated as, a ship of war. Clearance will not be granted until authorized from W;i.shington, and the master will be .so informed upon arrival. E. The conversion of a merchant vessel into a sliip of war is a question of fact whicli is to be established by direct or circumstantial e\ddence of intention to use the vessel as a ship of war. Department of State, Septcmher 19, 191-i. I Same to the British, French, and Japanese Ambassadors in Washington, and the Belgian Minister. 44 DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. [Inclosure 2.) MERCHANT VESSELS SUSPECTED OF CARRYING SUPPLIES TO BELLIGERENT VESSELS. 1. A biifie of operations for belligerent warships is presumed when fuel or other supplies are furnished at an Ameri- can port to such warships more than once within three months since the war began, or during the period of the war, either directly or by means of naval tenders of the belligerent or by means of merchant vessels of belligerent or neutral nationality acting as tenders. 2. A common rumor or suspicion that a merchant vessel laden with fuel or other naval supplies intends to deliver it,s cargo to a belligerent warship on the high seas, when unsupported by direct or circumstantial evidence, imposes no duty on a neutral government to detain such merchant vessel even for the purpose of investigating the rumor or Buspirion, unless it is known that the vessel has been previously engaged in funiishing supplies to a belligerent war^^hip. 3. Circumstantial evidence, supporting a rumor or suspicion that a merchant vessel intends to fumL^h a belligerent warship with fuel or other supplies on the high seas, is sufficient to warrant detention of the vessel until its intention can be investigated in the following cases: (a) WTien a belligerent warship is known to be off the port at which the merchant vessel is taking on cargo suited for naval supplies, or when there is a strong presumption that the warship is off the port. (6) When the merchant vessel is of the nationality of the belligerent whose warship is knowai to be off the coast. (c) ^^'hen a merchant vessel which has on a previous voyage between ports of the United States and ports of other neutral States failed to have on board at the port of arrival a cargo consisting of naval supplies shipped at the port of departure seeks to take on board a similar cargo. (rf) ^^^len coal or other supplies are purchased by an agent of a belligerent Government and shipped on board a merchant vessel which does not clear for a port of the belligerent but for a neighboring neutral port. (e) WTien an agent of a belligerent is taken on board a merchant vessel ha\'ing a cargo of fuel or other supplies and clearing for a neighboring neutral port. 4. The fact that a merchant vessel, which is laden with fuel or other naval supplies, seeks clearance under strong suspicion that it is the intention to furnish such fuel or supplies to a belligerent warship, is not sufficient ground to warrant its detention, if the case is isolated and neither the vessel nor the warship for which the supplies are presumably intended has pre^nously taken on board similar supplies since the war began or within three months during the period of the war. 5. The essential idea of neutral territory becoming the base for naval operations by a belligerent is repeated, departure from such territory by a naval tender of the belligerent or by a merchant vessel in belligerent service which is laden with fuel or other naval supplies. 6. A merchant vessel, laden with naval supplies, clearing from a port of the United States for the port of another neutral nation, which arrives at its destination and there discharges its cargo, should not be detained if, on a second voyage, it takes on board another cargo of similar nature. In such a case the port of the other neutral nation may be a base for the naval operations of a belligerent. If so and even if the fact is notorious, this Government is under no obligation to prevent the shipment of naval supplies to that port. Commerce in munitions of war between neutral nations can not as a rule be a basis for a claim of unneutral conduct, even though there is a strong presumption or actual knowledge that the neutral State, in whose port the sup- plies are discharged, is permitting its territory to be used as a base of supply for belligerent warships. The duty of preventing an unneutral act rests entirely upon the neutral State whose territory is being used as such a base. In fact this principle goes further in that, if the supplies were shipped directly to an established naval base in the territory or under the control of a belligerent, this Government would not be obligated by its neutral duty to limit such shipments or detain or otherwise interfere with the merchant vessels engaged in that trade. A neutral can only be charged with unneutral conduct when the supplies, furnished to a belligerent warship, are furnished directly to it in a port of the neutral or through naval tenders or merchant vessels acting as tenders departing from such port. 7. The foregoing propositions do not apply to furnishing munitions of war included in absolute contraband, since in no event can a belligerent warship take on board such munitions in neutral waters, nor should it be permitted to do so indirectly by means of naval tenders or merchant vessels acting as such tenders. Department of State, September 19, 1914. File No. 763.72111/156. The Acting Secretary of State to the British Amiassador. No. 500.] Department of State, Washington, Septemher 26, 1914. Excf-llenct: I have tlic honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th mstant, in which, with reference to the presence m American ports of the British armed merchant vessels Adriatic and Merion, you advise the department of the receipt of a despatch from Sir Edward Grey in which he states that His Majesty's Government holds the view that it is not in accordance witli neutraUty and international law to detain in neutral ports merchant vessels anned with purely defensive armaments. In reply I have the honor to state that this Government has had the matter of the status of armed merchant vessels under consideration, and that it has already made a public announce- ment thereon. , In tliis relation I have also the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yom- Embassy's memo- randum of the 7th instant, announcing the departure of the Adriatic from New York, and pointing out that, as she had no war material on board and carried no army reservists, these data boar out the assurances that the Adriatic was bound on a peaceful commercial voyage and that her armament was destined solely for defensive purposes. I have, etc., Robert Lansing. DEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. 45 File No. 763.72111/227. The Secretary of State to Amhassador Gerard. No. 143.] Department of State, Washington, Septcmher 29, 1914- Sir: I tnuismit horowith, for tho information of the German Govcrumoiit, copies of two memoranda i-isuctl by this Department which define the general rules wliich tlie Government of the United States will follow in dealing with cases involving tho status of armed merchant vessels visiting American ports, and with cases of merchant vessels suspected of carrying sup- plies to belligerent warships from American ports. Copies of these memoranda were also sent to the German Ambassador here, and it is at liis request that tho copies herewith aro sent for communication to his Government. I am, etc., For the Secretary of State : Robert Lansing. File No. 763.72111/473. Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State. [Telegram — Paraphrase.] American Embassy, Berlin, October 15, 1914- 7 p. m. Mr. Gerard transmits the following memorandum which he says he has received from the German Foreign Office: "An official notice appearing m tho Westminster Gazette of September 21, 1914, states that the Department of State at Washmgton has ruled that ships of belligerent nations when equipped with ammunition and armament shaU be treated nevertheless, whQe in American ports, as merchant ships, provided the armament serves for defensive purposes only. This rulhig wholly fails to comply with the principles of neutrality. The equipment of British mer- chant vessels with artillery is for the purpose of making armed resistance against German cruis- ers. Resistance of this sort is contrary to international law, because in a military sense a mer- chant vessel is not permitted to defend itself agamst a war vessel, an act of resistance givmg the warship * * * i with crew and passengers. It is a question whether or not sliips thus armed should l)e admitted into ports of a neutral country at all. Such ships, m any event, should not receive any better treatment ui neutral ports than a regular wai-ship, and should be subject at least to the rules issued by neutral nations restricting the stay of a warship. If the Government of the United States considers that it fulfills its duty as a neutral nation by con- finmg the admission of armed merchant ships to such ships as are equipped for defensive pur- poses only, it is pointed out that so far as determinuog the warlike character of a ship is con- cerned, the distinction between tho defensive and offensive is irrelevant. The destination of a ship for use of any kind in war is conclusive, and restrictions as to the extent of anniunent affords no guarantee that ships armed for defensive purposes only will not be used for offensive purposes under certain circumstances. File No. 7C3.72111/473. The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard. [Telegram.] Department op State, Washington, November 7, 1914- Your 515, October 15th. Tlae Government of the United States is obliged to dissent from tho views of the German Government as expressed hi your telegram in regard to the treatment to be accorded armed merchant vessels of belligerent nationality m neutral ports. Tlie prac- tice of a majority of nations and the concensus of opuiion by the leadmg authorities on inter- national law, mcluding many German writers, support the proposition that merchant vessels may arm for defense witliout loshig their private character and that they may emph)y such amiament against hostile attack without contravenmg the principles of mternational law. Tlie purpose of an armament on a merchant vessel is to be determined by various circum- stances, among which are the number and position of the guns on the vessel, the quantity of ammunition and fuel, the number and sex of the passengers, the nature of the cargo, etc. Tested by evidence of this character the question as to whether an arm.iraent on a merchant vessel is intended solely for defensive j>uqjoses may be readily answered and the neutral govermnent should regulate its treatment of the vessel in accordance with tho intended use of the annament. I Omission. 46 bEFENSIVE ARMAMENT. This Government considers tliat i;i permitting ii private vessel having a general cargo, a customary amount of fuel, an average crew, and passengers of both sexes on board, and carry- ing a small anniiment and a small amount of ammunition, to enjoy the hospitality of an Ameri- can ])ort us a men'lnmt vessel, it is in no way violating its duty as a neutral. Nevertlicless it is not unmindful of the fact that the circumstances of a particular case may be such as to cause eml)arrassment and possible controversy as to tlu^ charactc^r of an armed private vessel visiting its ports. Recognizing, therefore, the desirability of avoiding a ground of complaint tills Gov- eriunent, as soon as a case arose, while frankly admitting the right of a merchant vessel to carry a defensive aiTnament, expressed its disapprobation of a practice which compelled it to pass upon a vessel's intended use, which opmion if proven subsequently to be eiToneous might con- stitute a ground for a charge of mmeutral conduct. As a result of these representations no merchant vassels with armaments have visited the ports of the United States smce the lOth of September. In fact from the begimving of the European wars but two armed private vessels have entered or cleared from ports of this country and as to these vessels their character as merchant vessels was conclusively established. Please bring the foregoing to the attention of the German Goveriunent and in domg so express the hope that they will also prevent their merchant vessels from entering the ports of the United States carrying annaments even for defensive purposes though they may possess the riglit to do so by the rules of international law. Lansing. I PART V. INTERNMENT OF THE GERMAN SHIPS GEIER AND LOCKSUN. 47 INTERNMENT OF GERMAN SHIPS GEIER AND LOCKSUN. File No. 763.72111/75G. The British Ambassador to the Secretary of State. No. 369.] British Embassy, Washington, October 2S, 1,914. Sir: According to information which has reached my Government, the German war vessel Geier lias hocn undergoing repairs at Honokihi since October 17, and sliould he now ready to take tlie sea. In view of Article 17 of No. 13 of the Hague Convention of 1907 I have the honour to protest against the continued presence of the Geier in a United States harbour and to request that she may be interned. My Govcrnni(>nt has also been hiformed that the German ship Locksun is now in Honolulu with 1,000 tons of coal on board. As the Department was informed in the memorandum from this Embassy of the 19th instant,* she is one of the sliips which have been despatched by Messrs. Behimieyer from Philijipine ports for the purpose of conveying supplies of coal to German cruisers. She sailed from Manila ostensibly for Menado (Celebes), but did not call there, and arrived at Honolulu on October 15 in company with the German cruiser Geier. As she obviously made a false declaration of destination, there appears to be circumstantial evidence that she has already been engaged in furnishng supplies to a beUigerent warship, and that under the general rides of international law and the United States regulations of Sejitember 19, 1914, there is gromid for detainmg her for the pupose of enquiry. I have, etc., Cecil Spring-Rice. File No. 763.72111/547. The Japanese Amhassador to the Counselor. [Extract.] Imperial Japanese Embassy, ]Yaskmgton, October 28, 1914. My Dear Mr. Lansing: Adverting to our conversation on October 26 and to your unofficial letter of October 27,* relatmg to the German man-of-war Geier, I wish to inform you that the purport of oiu* conversation as well as the contents of your letter has been referred to the home government. In the meantime. Baron Kato has sent me telegraphic instructions, which apparently crossed my cables, the substance of which I beg to enclose herewith.* Witli regard to it, I should be greatly obhged if you would give me further information concerning your intention as regards the disposition of the Geier. I am, etc., S. Chinda. File No. 763.72111/550. The Assistant Secretartj of the Treasury to the Secretary of State. Treasury Department, Washington, October 28, 1914. Sir: Referring to this Department's letter of the 21st instant and previous correspondence, relative to the German gunboat Geier, now at Honolulu, I have the honor to quote a further cablegram from the collector of customs at that port, as follows: noNOLULU, Oct. 27, 1914 {10.15 p. m.) On October 15 captain German gunboat Gckr requested permission to make repairs to render vessel seaworthy and estimated time for same at one week. On October 20 Naval Constructor Furer, at my request, examined the vessel and recommended that time be extended eight days from 20th to place boilers in seaworthy condition. To-day consul reqiiesl.s from eight to ten days more in which to make repairs to steam and feed piping and boilers that have been fo\ind to be leaking. Consul states captain has used every effort to finish repairs, working Sundays and overtime, but owing to lack of labor can not finish in less time. Naval Constructor Furer has just completed another examination of the vessel and reports that he is unable to state how long repairs should take, aa more leak-y tubes may be found as work * Xol printed. 4550°— I.'-. i 49 50 INTERNMENT OF SHIPS GEIER AND LOCKSUN. progresses. Honolulu iron works estimates time for repairs at from two to three weeks, whirh, in opinion of Purer, is a conservative minimum. Purer reports piping and boilers in bad condition; may possibly take further time to repair. Await instructions. I will thank you to adviso mo as soon as possible what additional instructions you desire to be given to the collector in the matter. Wm. p. Malbuen. Pile No. 703.72111/535. The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Guthrie. [Telegram.] Department of State, Washington, October SO, lOl^. Your October 28th, 11a. m.,* Government has instructed authorities to notify captain of Geier that repairs must be completed within definite time or vessel will be interned. Exact date obviously can not be made known. Lansing. FUe No. 763.72111/550. The Counselor to the German Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, October 30, 1914. My Dear Mr. Ambassador: The Department has been advised that the German gunboat Geier put into the port of Honolulu, and on October 15 the captain requested permission to make repairs to render the vessel seaworthy, and estimated the time for this work to be one week. The naval constructor of the United States at the port of Honolulu examined the vessel on October 20, and recommended that the time be extended eight days, from October 20, in order to place the boilers in a seaworthy condition. On October 27, the German consul at that port requested from eight to ten days additional time in which to make repairs to steam and feed piping and boilers that have been found to be m a leaking condition. Upon a further examina- tion, the United States naval constructor reports that he is unable to state how long repairs shotild take, as conditions requiring remedy may be found as work progresses. It is also reported that, on account of the generally bad condition of the piping and boilers, further time may be required to complete all repairs. The circumstances m this case point to the gmiboat Geier as a ship that at the outbreak of war finds itself in a more or less broken-down condition and on the point of undergoing general repairs, but still able to keep the sea. In this situation the Government believes that it does not comport with a strict neutrality or a fair interpretation of the Hague Conventions, to allow such a vessel to complete unlimited rejiairs in a United States port. The Government therefore has instructed the authorities to notify the caj^tain of the Geier that three weeks from October 15 will be allowed the Geier for repairs, and that if she is not able to leave American waters by November 6, the United States will feel obliged to msist that she be uiterned until the expiration of the war. I am, etc., Robert Lansing. File No. 763.72111/547. The Counselor to the Japanese Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, October SO, 1914- My Dear Mr. Ambassador: In reply to your note of the 2Sth instant, in regard to the German gunboat Geier, now undergoing repairs at Honolulu, I would advise you that the Imperial German Ambassador in this capital has been informed of this Government's intention to fix a definite period within which repairs to this vessel should be completed, and that if it is found impossible to complete the repairs within the period set, the United States will be obliged to insist that the gunboat be interned during the present war. Instructions have been issued to the United States officers to mform the captain of the Geier in this same sense. I am, etc., Robert Lansing. * Not printed. INTERNMENT, OF SHU'S GEIER AND LOCKSUN. 51 Kill! No. 7f):!.72m/r>r,o. The Acting Secretanj of Staff to the British Amhassador. Department of State, WdsJrinfjIon, October 30, 1914. Excellency: The Department has received your note of tlie 2Sth instant protesting against the continued presonco of the Oder in a I^'nited States liarbor and requesting that she may ho interned. In repl\- I have tlie honor to inform you that tlie Imperial German Ambas- sador in this capital lias been advised of this Government's intention to fix a definite period witliin which repairs to this vessel should b(> completed, and that if she is umddc to leave Ameri- can waters within the j^eriod set, the I'nited States Government will feel obliged to insist that she be interned. The appropriate authorities of the United States have been instructed to inform the captain of the Gciir in this sense. You also call attention in your note to the German ship Lochsun now in Honolulu with 1 ,000 tons of coal on hoard, and state that slie sailed from Manila, ostensibly for Menado, in tiie Celebes, but did not call there and arrived at Honolulu on October 15 in compau}' with tlie German cruiser Gcier. You further state that as she obviously made a false declaration of destination, there appears to bo circumstantial evidence that she has already been engaged in furnishing supplies to a belligerent warship and that, under the general rules of international law and the United States regulations of September 19 there is ground for detaining her for the purpose of inquir3^ In reply I have the honor to advise you that instructions have been issued to detain this vessel, pending an investigation as to whether she has been furnishing supplies to belligerent warships. This matter will be made the subject of a further communi- cation to you when the examination has been completed. T liave, etc., Robert Lansing. File N"o. 703.72111/840. Tlie Counselor to the German Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, November 7, 1914. My Dear Mr. Ambassador: Referring to my previous communication to you of October 30 regarding the internment of the German cruiser Gcier, the Department is now in po.ssession of information that the German steamship Locksun, belonging to the Norddeutschcr Lloyd Company, cleared August 16, 1914, from Manila with 3,215 tons of coal for Menado, in the Celebes: that she coaled the German warship Geler in the course of her voyage toward Hono- lulu, where she arrived soon after the Gcier; that the Loclcsun received coal by transfer from another vessel somewhere between Manila and Honolulu, and that the captain stated that he had on board 245 or 250 tons of coal when he entered Honolulu, whereas investigation showed that he had on board approximately 1,600 tons. From these facts the Department is of the opinion that the operations of the Loclcsun constitute her a tender to the Gcier, and that she may be reasonably so considered at the present time. This Government is, therefore, under the necessity of according the Loelsun the same treatment as the Gcier, and has taken steps to have the vessel interned at Honolulu if she does not leave immediately. I am, etc., Robert Lansing. Kile Ko. 7fi3.72111/63fi. The German Ambassador to the Counselor of tlic Department. J. No. A 2171.] German Embassy, 'Washington, November 11, 1914- ^Iy Dear Mr. Lansing: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 7th instant inform- ing mo tiiat the German steamer Loclcsun, belonging to the Norddeutschcr Lloyd, now at H(molulu, is considered by the United States Government as being a tender to H. M. S. Geier and would therefore be interned at Honolulu if she did not leave immediately. In reply to this communication I beg you to kindly let me know on whicii rule or regula- tion the detention of the Loclcsun is to be based. The Loci-sun can not be considered as a man-of-war, not even an auxihary ship, but is a simple merchant ship. As to the alleged coaling of 11. M. S. Geier from the Loclcsun the neu- trahty regulations of the United States only provide that a vessel can be prevented from takmg coal to a warship for a period of three months after having left an American port. As the Loclcsun left the last American port (Manila) on August 16 she ought to be free on November 16. I am, etc., J. Bernstoeff. 52 INTERNMENT OF SHIPS GEIER AND I.OCKSUN. File No. 7G3.72111/651. The German Ambassador to the Secretary of State. [Translation.] No. A 2190.] Germ.\n Embassy, Washington, Novenilxr 11, lOlJf. Mr. Secretary of State: Two officers of H. M. S. Geier who had been granted sick leave have been interned with their orderhes in the United States. It seems that the United States 'Government took that measiu'e on the groiuid that the}' Ijelonged to the company of a ship whoso crew faced internment and which was in fact dismantled later. Tlais position woidd undoubtedly be correct if the officers had not left the ship until after internment, as in that case the whole crew should bo treated exactly like troops that cross the border of a neutral comitry. As a matter of fact, however, H. M. S. Geier was not dismantled mitU the 7th of this month and the official communication of Under Secretary of State Lansing which spoke of the disarmament of H. M. S. Geier ujider certain conditions is dated October 30. As to this I have the honor to uifonn Your Excellency that the interned officers and their orderlies had already left Honolulu on the 28th of October, that is, before the question of interning the crew of H. M. S. Geier had come up. It is therefore not a fact that those officers and men belonged to the company of a ship on the point of being interned. In this connection I woidd draw Your Excellency's attention to the treatment accorded to the British Major Robertson. That officer was allowed by the like iVmerican authorities to proceed on liis jom-ney, although it was shoNvn that he had taken an active part in the war against Germany by fighting in the battle before Tsingtau. As this discrimination in the treatment of German and English officers appears to me to bo tUfficidt to explain, I have the honor to beg Your Excellency to cause tliis question to be agahi examined in the hght of the neutrality of the United States and kindly to procure for the officers of H. M. S. Geier and their orderhes pennission to travel freely. Accept, etc., J. Bernstorff. File No. 763.72111/614.] The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. Department of State, WasTiington, Novemher 12, 1914- Excellency: I have the honor to advise you of the receipt of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasmy, stathig that a telegram has been received from the collector of customs at Honolulu, reporting that, on November 8, 1914, the German naval vessels Geier and LocTcsun were interned there. Accept, etc. W. J. Bryan. File No. 763.72111/636.] The Counselor of (he Deimrtment to the German Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, Novemher 16, 1914- My Dear Mr. Ambassador: In reply to yonr note of the 11th instant, inqtnring on wliich rule or regidation the internment of the Gcmaan ship LocJcsun is based, I would advise you that the Loclisun has been interned on the principle that she has been acting as a tender to the German warship Geier, as the facts set forth in my note of the 7th instant substantiate. If, imder the circumstances, the LocJcsun has been in fact a tender to the Geier, the question involved does not relate to the amomit of coal which cither the Locksun or the Geier has taken on within tliree months, but rather relates to the association and cooperation of the two vessels in belligerent operations. The LocTcsun, having been shown to have taken the part of a supply ship for the Geier, is, in the opinion of tliis Government, stamped with the belHgerent character of that vessel, and has really become a part of her equipment. In this situation it is difficidt to understand on what basis it woxild have been possible to distinguish between the two vessels, so as to inteni the one and not the other. Tliis Goveriunent, therefore, has tsiken what appears to it to be the oidy reasonable course, under the circumstances, and directed that both vessels be interned. I am, etc., Robert Lansing. INTERNMENT OF SHIPS GEIEB AND LOCKSUN. 53 File No. 763.72111/743. The German Amhassador to the Secretary of State. [Translation.] No. A.2453.] German Embassy, Washington, November 21, 191 /f. Mil. Secrktary of State: In reply to Your Exoclloiicy's kind note of tho 12(h instant and with reference to Under Socrotary of State Laasinj^'s letter of tlio IGtli instant, both about the internment of the German steam.ship LocJcsvn at Honolulu, I have the honor to say the following; Under Secretary of State Lansing informed mo in his above-raent ion(>d letter of tho lOth instant that the S. S. Lochsun liad been interned because she had served as a tender to II. M. S. Geier, had thereby assumed tho character of a belligerent and was to be considered as part of tho equipment of a war vessel. To this I wish to say that there is, so far as I Icnow, no inter- national law or stipulation in existence wliich imparts tho character of a wareraft, i. e., of a "part of a war ship" to a tender on account of her accompanying a warship. The situation in times of peace also proves this. Where there is a likeliliood of the warsliip being unable safely to get along on her own resources, there is the necessity of scutling tcuiders along. This is rather often done in times of peace without causing such tenders to be considered and treated on that account as "parts of the warship concerned," or in the light of international law even as wai-ships. Granting, however, that such vessel could actually be considered as "part of a warship," then tliere could be no doubt that its part as a coaling and supply ship would come to an end at the ver}^ moment the warship is mterncHl and she would then cease to be "part of a warship." Besides, if it bo enough, as stated in tho above referred to note of the 16th instant, to stamp a steamer as a wareraft that she did supply a war vessel with coals or provisions, then tho steam- ship Loclcsun's case in nowise differs from that of the tug F. B. Dahrll, which, as I had the honor to inform Your Excellency by my note of tho 21st ultimo, carried victuals and informa- tion to tho English warship Essex from the port of New York. Accept, etc., J. Bernstorff. File No. 763.72111/651. The Acting Secretary of State to the German Ambassador. Department of State, Wasliington, November 27, 1914. Excellency: The Department has received your note of tho lltli instant in regard to the two officers of H. M. S. Geier and their orderlies, who left that vessel before it was interned, but wlio have with the remainder of its complement been interned withm United States juris- diction. You ask that, as tho actual internment of the vessel took place on the 7th instant, and as the officers and their orderlies left Honolulu on the 28th ultimo, the case be reexamined and tho officers and their orderlies be released. In reply I have the honor to advise you that the case has been carefully reexamined and that this Government, in its observance of a strict neutrality, is under obligation to retain these gentlemen in custody as a part of the Geier's company when she entered Amc^rican juris- diction. It appears that these men were not only duly incorporated in the armed forces of Germany, a belligerent power, but were also in a sense a part of an organized body of such forces entering a neutral port. In siich a case the laws of maritime warfare permit a limited hospitality to be extended to them, dependent upon their observing certain conditions. In the case of the Geier, these conditions were, it is believed, very generous. After a delay of several days within the hospitality of the United vStates, instead of the conventional 24 hours, these officers and their orderlies appear to have been granted sick leave by the captain of the Geier. This fact, however, can not, it is believed, properly be urged as separating them from the (reier in relation to its subsequent treatment. They arrived within United States juris- diction as a part of an organized armed force of the German Empne, and this fact, in the opinion of this Government, appears to be the crux of the whole matter. Were a distinction to be made on the grounds set forth in your note a ship in danger from her enemy might enter a neutral port, and before tho 2-1-hour period had elapsed, and before there was any danger of intermnent, her officers and crew might leave her and afterwards claim the right to return to their country as individuals. This course would manifestly not comport with the principles of neutrality as they are understood by the Department. Your Excellency compares the case of these officers and men of H. M. S. Geier with that of Major Robertson of the British Army, who appears to have been taken mto custody by American officers and sliortly thereafter released. The Department is of the opinion that the two incidents have no essential resemblance. Major Robertson arrived in tho United States as an individual and not as a part of an organized military body traveling together. The United States, therefore, m its governmental capacity as a neutral, was not bound imder the 54 INTERNMENT OP SHIPS GEIER AND LOCKSUN. principles of intomational law to iutoni him or to intorforo with his freedom of movement so long as his conduct did not infringe the proprieties of international or municipal law. The Department regrets, therefore, to advise you that this Government, after having carefully reexamined the case, does not see its way to release the officers and their orderlies in . question, or to consider them other than as a part of the complement of H. M. S. Gcicr, which the United States Government has been under the necessity of havmg interned during the continuance of the present war. Accept, etc., Robert Lansing. File No. 763.72111/743. The Secretary of Stale to the German Ambassador. Department of State, Washington, December 11, 1914- Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 21st ultimo in regard to the internment of the German steamship Loclsun at Honolulu. In reply I have the honor to call your attention to the expression "part of a warship," which occurs throughout your note. I do not understand from what source this expression is derived, as I do not find it in the correspondence of the Department to you on this subject. In my note to you of the 16tn ultimo it was stated that the Loclsun, having been shown to have taken the part of a supply sliip for the Geier, is, in the opinion of this Government, stamped with the belligerent character of that vessel, and has really become part of her equipment. This of course does not state that she is a "part of a warship." A tender is a part of the equipment of a vessel of war in the sense of acting as an auxiliary to such a vessel in the matter of carrying supplies and possibly giving other assistance. In a very real sense a vessel of war so attended may be considered as a belligerent expedition of which the tender is a part of the equipment, but to put a tender in the category of "part of a warship" is to suggest that the treatment to be accorded the tender shall be governed by the rules of contraband. In the circumstances of this case, as known by the Department, it is obhged to state that it still adheres to its previous position that the status of the LocTcsun as a tender to the ship of war Geier was sufficiently proved to justify her treatment as such. In this coimection the Department has the honor to call to your attention the following quotation from the award of the Alabama Claims Commission, which seems to establish this princijjle regarding the treat- ment of tenders, although the appHcation of this statement was not made to the exact circum- stances of the Locksun case: And so far as relates to the vessels called the Tusmloosa (tender to the Alabama), the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer (tendercj to the Florida), tlie tribunal is unanimously of opinion tliat such tenders or auxiliary vessels, being properly regarded as accessories, must necessarily follow the lot of their principals and be submitted to the same decision which applies to them respectively. Tlie entire practice of the internment of vessels appears to be of recent origin. The doctrine of internment was apparently first applied to any great extent during the Russo-Japanese war, and it is beheved that the treatment of the LocTcsun is in keeping -with the high standard of neutrality upon which the doctrine of intermnent is based. The Department is not aware that measures to preserve neutrality are entirely dictated by precedent and mternational law, and it believes that belligerents hardly have proper cause to question an attitude on neutrality justly in advance of precedent and international law if it is applied by the neutral impartially to all belligerents. As to the ad\asabihty of assuming such an attitude, the Department is impressed with the proposition that the neutral and not the belligerent is the proper judge in the circum- stances. You refer to the case of the tug F. B. DalzeU, wliich j-ou state carried suppUes and mfor- mation to the English warship Essex from the port of New York, and suggest that this case in no wise diifers from that of the steamsliip Locksun. In reply I have the honor to inform you that the result of tliis Government's investigation is to the effect that the tug Dalzdl did not as a fact carry suppUes and information to any British warsliip from the port of New York. If, however. Your Excellency is in possession of facts showing the contrary, the Government wiU be glad to be furnished with such data in order that it may renew its investigation and establish the truth in regard to the tug DalzeU, whether or not it agrees with the present finding of the Government. It will be rectdled, however, that the tug DalzeU is an ^bnerican vessel and therefore is not subject to intermnent as that term is imderstood in international law. This circumstance is not regarded, however, as rcdieving the Government from the duty of preventing the use of American ports as bases of naval operations as required by the provisions of Hague Convention No. 13, of 1907. Accept, etc., W. J. Bryan. PART VI. QUESTIONS RELATING TO NEUTRALITY.—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. 55 I QUESTIONS RELATING TO NEUTFIALITY. Chairman oftlie Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of State. Washington, Januanj S, 1915. Dkar Mr. Skcretary: As you arc aware, frequent complaints or charges arc made in one form or another througli the press that this Government has shown partiahty to Great Britain, France, and Russia as against Gennany and Austria during the present war between those powers; in addition to wliich I have received numerous letters to the same effect from sjTnpathizers witli Germany and Austria. The various groimds of these complaints may be summarized and stated in the following form: 1. Freedom of conmimiication by submarme cables, but censorship of wireless messages. 2. Submission to censorship of mails and in some cases to the repeated destruction of American letters found on neutral vessels. 3. The search of American vessels for German and Austrian subjects — (a) On the high seas. (&) In territorial waters of a belligerent. 4. Submission without protest to English violations of the rules regar(hng absolute and conditional contraband, as laid down — (ff) In the Hague Conventions. Q)) In international law. (c) In the Declaration of London. 5. Submission without protest to inclusion of copper in the list of absolute contraband. 6. Submission \\ithout protest to uiterference with American trade to neutral countries— (a) In conditional contraband. Qi) In absolute contraband. 7. Submission without protest to interruption of trade in conditional contraband con- signed to private persons in Germany and Austria, thereby supporting the policy of Great Britain to cut off all supplies fron 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, unifonns, and other munitions of war, although such sales prolong the war. 10. No suppression of sale of dumdum bullets to Great Britain. 11. British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and mtercept neutral vessels 12. Submission ^vithout protest to disregard by Great Britain and her allies of — (a) American naturahzation certificates. (6) American passports. 13. Change of ])olicy in regard to loans to beUigerents: (a) General loans. (6) Credit loans. 14. Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral vessels and in British ports, and their imprisonment. 15. Indifference to confinement of noncombatants in detention camps in England and France. 16. Failure to prevent transshipment of British troops and war material across the terri- tory of the United States. 17. Treatment and final internment of German steamship Geier and the collier Locksun at Honolulu. 18. Unfairness to Germany m rules relative to coaling of warships in Panama Canal Zone. 19. FaUiu-e to protest against the modifications of the declaration of London by the British Government. 20. General unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany and Austria. If you deem it not incompatible with the pubhc interest I would be obUged if you would furnish me with whatever information your department may have toucliing these various points of complaint, or request the coimselor of the State Department to send me the informa- tion, with any suggestions you or he may deem advisable to make with respect to either the legal or ])olitical aspects of the subject. So far as informed I see no reason why aU the master I am requesting to be furnished should not be made public, to the end that the true situation may bo known and misapprehensions quieted. I have, etc., Wm. J. Stone. 57 58 QUESTIONS RELATING TO NEUTRALITY. The Secretary of State to the Chairman of ike Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. DEPARTJfENT OF StATE, Washington, January 20, 1915. Dear Mr. Stone: I have received your letter of the 8th instant, referring to frequent comphiijits or charge's made in one form or another tlirougli the press that this Government has shown partiahty to Gr(!at Britain, France, and Russia against Germany and Austria during the present war, and stating that you have received numerous letters to the same effect from sympatliizers with the latter powcre. You sunmiarizc the various grounds of these complaints and ask that you he furnished with wliatevcr information the department may have toucliing these points of complaint, in order that you may be mformed as to what the true situation is in regard to these matters. In order that you may have such mformation as the department has on the subjects referred to in your letter, I will take them up seriatim. (1) Freedom of communication hy submarine cables versus censored communication by wire- less. The reason that wireless messages and cable messages reqvure different treatment by a neutral Government is as follows: Communications by wireless can not be interrupted by a belligerent. With a submarine cable it is otherwise. The possil)ihty of cutting the cable exists, and if a l)eUigerent possesses naval superiority the cable is cut, as was the German cable near the Azores by one of Germany's enemies and as was the British cable near Fanning Island by a German naval force. Since a cable is subject to hostile attack, the responsibility falls upon the belligerent and not upon the neutral to prevent cable communication. A more important reason, however, at least from the pomt of view of a neutral Government, is that messages sent out from a wireless station in neutral territory may be received by bel- ligerent warships on the high seas. If these messages, whether plain or in cipher, direct the movements of warships or convey to them information as to the location of an enemy's public or private vessels, the neutral territory becomes a base of naval operations, to permit which would be essentially imneutral. As a wireless message can be received by all stations and vessels within a given radius, every message in cipher, whatever its intended destination, must be censored; otherwise military information may be sent to warships off the coast of a neutral. It is manifest that a sub- marine cable is incapable of becoming a means of direct communication with a warship on the high seas. Hence its use can not, as a :fule, make neutral territory a base for the direction of naval operations. (2) Censorship of mails and in some cases repeated destruction of American letters on neutral vessels. As to the censorship of mails, Germany as well as Great Britain has pursued tliis course in regard to private letters falling into their hands. The unquestioned right to adopt a measure of this sort makes objection to it inadvisable. It has been asserted that American mail on board of Dutch steamers has been repeatedly destroyed. No evidence to this effect has been filed with the Government, and tlierefore no representations have been made. Until such a case is presented in concrete form, this Govern- ment would not be justified in presenting the matter to the offending belligerent. Complaints have come to the department that mail on board neutral steamers has been opened and detained, but there seem to be but few cases where the mail from neutral countries has not been, linally delivered. Wlien mail is sent to belligerent countries open and is of a neutral and private char- acter it has not been molested, so far as the department is advised. (3) Searching of American vessels for German and Austrian subjects on the high seas and in territorial rvaters of a belligerent. So far as this Government has been informed, no American vessels on the high seas, with two exceptions, have been detained or searched by belligerent warships for German and Austrian subjects. One of the exceptions to which reference is made is now the subject of a rigid investi- gation, 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 ofTending Go^'errmu•nt with a declaration that such procedure, if true, is an unwarranted exercise of jurisdiction over .Vmerican vessels in whicli this Government will not acquiesce. An American private vessel entering vi)luntarily the territorisil waters of a belligerent becomes subject to its municipal laws, as do the pei*sons on board the voss(>l. There have appeared in certain publications the assertion that failure t;) protest in these cases is an abandonment of tho principle for wluch the United States wont to war in 1812. If the failme to protest were true, which it is not, the principle involved is entirely different from I i QUESTIONS RELATING TO NEUTRALITY. 59 tho one appoalofl to against unjustifiable impressmont of Atnoricans in the British Navy in time of poaco. (4) Submission without protest to British violations of the rules regarding absolute and condi- tiorml contraband as laid down in The Ilagne conventions, the declaration of London, and inter- national law. There is no Hague convention wliich deals with absolute or conditional contraband, and, us tho declaration of London is not in force, tho rules of international law only apply. As to tho articles to l)e regaided as contraband, there is no gencrjil agreement between nations. It is tho practice for a country, cither in time of peace or after tho outbreak of war, to declare tho articles which it wiU consider as a])solute or conditional contraband. It is true that a neutral Government is seriously affected by tliis declaration, as tho rights of its subjects or citizens may be impaired. But tho rights and interests of belligerents and neutrals are opposed in respect to contraband articles and trade and there is no tribunal to whicli c^uestions of difference may be rcadUy submitted. Tho record of tho United States in the past is not free from criticism. When neutral this Government has stood for a restricted list of absolute and conchtional contraband. As a beUi''- erent, wo have contended for a liberal list, according to our conception of the necessities of the case. Tho United States has made earnest repres(>ntations to Great Britain in regard to the seizure and detention by tho Britisii authorities of all ^Vmerican ships or cargoes bona fide destiiuul to neutral ports on the ground that such seizures and detentions were contrary to tho existing rules of international law. It wiU be recaDcHl, however, that American courts have establislied various rides 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 determine from tho circumstances whether tho ostensible was the real destination. They have held that tlie shipment of articles of contraband to a neutnd port "to order," from which, as a matter of fact, cargoes had been transshipped to the enemy, is corroborative evidence that the cargo is really destined to the enemy instead of to the neutral poi-t of delivery. It is thus seen that some of f-ho doctrines wliieh aj^pear to liear hai-slily upon neutrals at the present time are analogous to or outgrowtlis from policies adopted by the United States when it was a bellig- erent. The Governnu^nt therefore can not consistently protest against the application of rules which it has foUowc^l in the past, ludess tliey have not been practiced as lierotofore. (5) Acquiescence without protest to the inclusion of copper and other articles in the British lists of absolute contraband. Tho United States has now under consideration the question of tho right of a belligerent to include "copper unvsTought" in its list of absolute contraband instead of in its list of conditional contraband. As the Go\ernment of the United States has in the past placed "aU articles from which anuiiunition is manufactured" in its contraband list, and has declared copper to be among such materials, it necessarily finds some embarrassment in dealing with the subject. Moreover, there is no instance of tlie United States acquiescing in Great Britain's seizure of copper sliipments. In every case in wliich it has been done vigorous representations have been made to tho British Government, and tho representatives of the United States have pressed for the release of tho sliipmenis. (6) Submission without protest to interference with American trade to neutral countries in con- ditional and absolute contraband. The fact that the commerce of tlio United States is interrupted by Great Britain is conse- quent upon the superiority of lier navy on tho higli seas. History shows that whenever a country has possessed that superiority our trade has been interrupted and that few articles essential to the prosecution of the war have been allowed to reach its enemy from this country. The depart- ment's recent note t(^ tlio British Government, which luvs been made public, in regard to deten- tions and seizures of American vessels and cargoes, is a complete answer to this complaint. Certain other complaints appear aimed at the loss of profit in trade, which must include at least in part trade in contraband with Germany; wliile otlier complaints demand the prohibition of trade in contraband, wliich appear to refer to trade with the allies. (7) Submission without protest to interruption of trade in conditional contraband consigned to private persons in Germany and Austria, thereby supporting the policy of Or eat Britain to cut ojf all supplies from Germany and Austria. As no American vessel so far as known has attempted to carry conditional contraband, to Germany or Austria-Hungary, no ground of complaint has arisen out of the seizure or condemna- tion by Great Britain of an American vessel with a belligerent destination. Until a case arises and tho Government has taken action upon it, criticism is premature and unwarranted. The United States in its note of December 28 to the British Government strongly contended for the principle of freedom of trade in articles of conditional contraband not destined to the bellig- erent's forces. 60 QUESTIONS KELATING TO NEUTRALITY. (S) Sithnission- to British interference with trade in petroleum, ruhber, leather, v;ool, etc. Potrol and othor potrolouin products have been proclaimed by Groat Britain as contraband of war. In view of the absolute necessity of such products to the use of submarines, aeroplanes, and motors, the United States Government has not yet reached the conclusion that they are improperly included in a list of contraband. Military operations to-day are largely a question of motive power through mechanical devices. It is therefore difhcult to argue successfully against the inclusion of petroleum among tlio articles of contraband. As, to the detention of cargoes of petroleum going to ncaitral countries, this Government has thus far successfully obtained the release in every ca^se of detention or seizure wliich has been brought to its attention. Great Britain and France have placed rubber on the absolute contraband list and leather on the conditional contra])and list. Rubber is extensively used m the manufacture and opera- tion of motors and, like petrol, is regarded by some authorities as essential to motive power to-day. Leather is even more widely used in cavahy and infantry ecpiipment. It is imdcrstood that both rubber and leather, together with wool, have been embargoed by most of the belligerent countries. It wiU be recalled that the United States has in the past exercised the right of embargo upon exports of any commodity which might aid the enemy's cause. (9) The United States hus not interfered with the sale to Great Britain and her allies of arms, ammunition, horses, uniforms, and other munitions of war, although such sales prolong the conflict. There is no power in the Executive to prevent the sale of ammunition to the belligerents. The duty of a neutral to restrict trade in munitions of war has never been imposed ])y inter- national law or by municipal statute. It has never been the policy of this Government to prevent the shipment of anns or ammunition into belligerent tcmtory, except in the case of neighboring American Ilepublics, and then only when civil strife prevailed. Even to this extent the bellig- erents in the present conflict, when they were neutrals, have never, so far as the records disclose, limited the sale of munitions of war. It is only necessary to point to the enormous quantities of anns and ammunition furnished by manufacturers in Gennany to the belligerents m the Russo- Japanese war and in the recent Balkan wars to estabhsh the general recognition of the propriety of the trade by a neutral nation. It may be added that on the 15th of December last the German ambassador, by du'ection of his Government, presented a copy of a memorandum of the Imperial German Government which, among other things, set forth the attitude of that Government toward traffic in contraband of war by citizens of neutral countries. The Imperial Government stated that "under the general principles of international law, no exception can be taken to neutral States letting war material go to Germany's enemies from or through neutral territory," and that the adversaries of Germany in the present war are, in the opinion of the Imperial Government, authorized to "draw on the United States contraband of war and especially arms worth billions of marks." These principles, as the ambassador stated, have been accepted by the United States Government in the statement issued by the Department of .State on October 15 last, entitled "Neutrahty and trade in contraband." Acting in conformity with the propositions there set forth, the United States has itself taken no part in contraband trafhc, and has, so far as possible, lent its influence toward equal treatment for aU belligerents in the matter of purchasing arms and ammunition of private persons in the United States. (10) Th^e United States has not suppressed the sale of dumdum hullet-s to Great Britain. On December 5 last the German ambassador addressed a note to the department, stating that the British Government had ordered from the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. 20,000 "riot guns," model 1897, and 50,000,000 "buckshot cartridges" for use in such guns. The department replied that it saw a published statement of the Winchester Co., the correctness of which the company has confinned to the department by telegraph. In this statement the company categoricaUy denies that it has received an order for such guns and cartridgo>s from or made any sales of such material to the British Government, or to any other Government engaged in the present war. The ambassador further called attention to "information, the accuracy of which is not to be doubted," that 8,000,000 cartridges fitted with "mushroom bullets" had been delivered suace October of this year b}- the Union MetaUic Cartridge Co. for the armament of the English army. In reply the department referred to the letter of December 10, 1914, of the Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge Co., of New York, to the ambassador, called forth by certam newspaper reports of statements alleged to have been made by the ambassador in regard to the sales by that company of soft-nosed bidlets. . From this letter, a copy of which wjis sent to the department by the company, it appears that instead of 8,000,000 cartridges ha\nng been sold, only a little over 117,000 were manufac- tured and 109,000 were sold. The letter further asserts that these cartridges were made to supply a demand for a better sporting cartridge with a soft-nosed bullet than had been manu- factured theretofore, and that such cartridges can not be used in the military rifles of any foreign powers. The company adds that its statements can be substantiated and that it is ready to QUESTIONS RELATING TO NEUTRALITY. 61 give the ambassador any cvid(>nco that he may'requiro on these points. The department further stated that it was also in receipt from the company of a complete detailed list of the persons to whom these cartridges ivere sold, and that from tiiis list it appeared that the cartridges were sold to finns in lots of 20 to 2,000 and one lot each of 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000. Of these only 960 cartridges went to British Nortli America and 100 to British East Africa. The department added that, if the ambassador could furnish evidence that this or any other company is manufacturing and selling for the use of tlie contending armies in Europe cartridges wliose use would contravene The Hague conventions, the department would be glad to be furnished witli tliis evidence, and that the President would, in case any American company is shown to l)e engaged in this tradic, use his influence to prevent, so far as possible, sales of such ammunition to the powei-s engaged in tlic European war, without regard to whether it is the duty of this Government, upon legal or conventional grounds, to take such action. The substance of botli the ambassador's note and the department's reply have appeared in the press. The department has received no oilier complaints of iilleged sales of dumdum bullets by American citizens to belligerent Governments. (11) British warships are fcrmitUd to lie off American ports and intercept neutral vessels. The complaint is imjustified from the fact that representations were made to the British Government that the presence of war vessels in the vicinity of New York Harbor was offensive to this Government and a similar complaint was made to the Japanese Government as to one of its cruisers in the vicinity of the port of Honolulu. In both cases the warships were with- drawn. It will be recalled that in 1863 the department took the position that captures made by its vessels after hovering about neutral ports would not be regarded as valid. In the Franco- Prussian vVar President Grant issued a proclamation warning belligerent warships against hoveruig in the vicinity of .Vmerican ports for purposes of observation or hostile acts. The same poli(;y has been maintained in the present war, and in all of the recent proclamations of neutrality the President states that such practice by belligerent wai-ships is "unfriendly and offensive." (12) Great Britain and her allies are allowed without protest to disregard American citizenship papers and passports. American citizenship papers have l)ecn (hsregarded in a comparatively few instances by Great Britain, but the same is true of iill the belligerents. Bearers of American passports have been arrested in all the countries at war. In every case of apparent illegal arrest the United States Government has entered vigorous protests with request for release. The department docs not know of any cases, except one or two, which are st'dl under investigation, in which naturjilized Germans have not been released upon representations by this Government. There have, liowever, come to the department's notice authentic cases in which American passports liave I)een fraudulently obtained and used by certain German subjects. Tlie Department of Justice has recently apprehended at least four persons of German nationality who, it is alleged, obtained American passports under pretense of bemg American citizens and for the purpose of returning to Germany without molestation by her enemies during the voyage. There are indications that a systematic plan had been devised to obtain American pass])orts through fraud for the piu-pose of seciiring safe passage for German ofRcers and reservists desh'ing to return to Germany. Such fraudulent use of passports by Germans themselves can have no other effect than to cast suspicion upon American passports in general. New regulations, however, requiring among other things the attaching of a photograph of the bearer to his passport, under the seal of the Department of State, and the vigilance of the Department of Justice, will doubtless prevent any further misuse of American passports. (13) Cliange of policy in regard to loans to iellige rents. War loans in this country were disapproved because inconsistent with the spirit of neu- trality. There is a clearly defined difference between a war loan and the purchase of arms and ammunition. The policy of disapproving of war loans affects all go\)ernments alilce, so that the disapproval is not an unneutral act. The case is entirely different in the matter of arms and ammunition, because prohibition of export not only might not, but in this case would not, operate equally upon the nations at war. Then, too, the reason given for the disapproval of war loans is supported by other considerations which are absent ui the case jjresented by the sale of arms and ammunition. The taking of money out of the United States during such a war as this might seriously embaiTass the Government in case it needed to borrow money and it miglit also seriously impair- this Nation's ability to assist the neutral nations which, though not participants m the war, are compelled to bear a heavy bm-den on account of the war, and, again, a war loan, if offered for popular subscription in the United States, would be taken up chiefly by those who are in sympathy witli the belligcrcMit seeking the loan. The result would be that great numbers of the American j)eople might become more earnest partisans, having 62 QUESTIOXS RELATINf! TO NEUTRALITY. matorial interost in the surrcss of tho bolligcront, whoso ])oih1s thoy hold. These purchases wouhl not he confined to a few, but would spread generally throughout the country', so that the people would be divided into groups of partisans, which woidd result in intense bitterness and might cause an undesiral)le, if not a serious, situation. On the other hand, contracts for and sales of contraband are mere matters of trade. The manufacturer, unless peculiarly sen- timental, would sell to one belligerent as readily as he would to another. No general spirit of partisanship is aroused — no sympathies excited. Tlie whole transaction is merely a matter of business. This Government has not hevn advised that an^' general loans have been made by foreign governments in this country since the President exjiressed his wish tliat loans of this character should not be made. (l-J) Siihmission to ai-rest of native-bom Americans on neutral vessels and in British ports and tJieir imprisonment. Tlie general charge as to the arrest of Ameriean-l)orn citizens on board neutral vessels and in British ]X)rts, the ignoring of their passports, and theii* confinement ui jails requires evi- dence to support it. That there have been cases of injustice of this sort is unquestionablj- true, but Americans in Germanj^ have suffered in this way as Americans have in Great Britain. This Government has considered that the majority of these cases resulted from overzealousness on the part of subordinate officials in both countries. Every case M'hich has been brought to the attention of the Department of State has been promptly investigated and, if the facts warranted, a demand for release has been made. (15) Indifference to confinement of noncombatants in detention camps in England and France. As to the detention of noncombatants confined in concentration camps, all the belliger- ents, with perhaps the exception of Servia and Russia, have made similar complaints and those for whom this Government is acting have asked investigations, which representatives of this Government have made impartially. Their reports have shown that the treatment of prisoners is generally as good as possible luider the conditions in all comitries, and that there is no more reason to say that they are mistreated in one country than in another country or that this Government has manifested an indifference in the matter. As this department's efforts at investigations seemed to develop bitterness between the coimtries, the department on November 20 sent a circular instruction to its representatives not to undertake further investigation of concentration camps. But at the special request of the German Government that Mr. Jackson, former American minister at Bucharest, now attached to the American Embassy at Berlin, make an investiga- tion of the prison camps in England, in addition to the investigations already made, the department has consented to dispatch Mr. Jackson on this special mission. (16) Failure to prevent transshipment of British troops and war material across the territory of the United States. The department has had no specific case of the passage of convoys of troops across Amer- ican territory brought to its notice. There have been rumors to this effect, but no actual facts have been presented. The transshipment of reservists of all belUgerents who have requested the privilege has been permitted on condition that they travel as individuals and not as orgaiiized, miiformed, or armed bodies. The German Embassy has advised the depart- ment that it would not be likely to avail itself of the privilege, but Germany's ally, Austria- Hungary, did so. Only one case raismg the question of the transit of war material o\vned by a belHgerent across United States territory has come to the de})artment's notice. Tliis was a request on the part of the Canadian Government for permission to ship equipment across Alaska to the sea. The request was refused. (17) Treatment and final internment of German steamship "Geier" and the collier "Locksun" at Honolulu. The Geier entered Honolulu on October 15 in an imseaworthy condition. The command- ing officer reported the necessity of extensive repairs which would require an indefinite period for completion. The vessel was allowed the generous period of three weeks to November 7 to make repairs and leave the port, or, failing to do so, to be interned. A longer period woidd have been contrary to mternational practice, which does not permit a vessel to remain for a long time in a neutral port for the piu-pose of repairing a generally run-down condition due to long sea service. Soon after the German cruiser arrived at Honolulu a Japanese cruiser appeared off the port and the commander of the Geier chose to intern the vessel rather than to dejiart from the harl)or. Shortly after the Geier entered the port of Honolulu the steamer Locksun aiTiveil. It was fomid that this vessel had dehvered coal to the Geier en route and had accompanied her toward Hawaii. As she had thus constituted herself a tender or colUer to the Geier siu> was accorded the same treatment and interned on November 7. QUESTIONS REI.ATIXO TO NEUTRALITY. 63 (18) Unfairness to Gfrmany in nihs rdative to coalinf] of wfir.ilips in Panama Canal Zone. By proclamation of Novombor 13, 1014, certain special restrictions -were placed on the coaling; of warships or their tenders or coUicrs in tlio Canal Zone. These regulations were framed through the collaboration of the Slate, Navy, and War Departments and without the slightest reference to favoritism to the IjeUigerents. Before these regulations were proclaimed, war vessels could procure coal of the Panama Railway in the zone ports, but no belligerent vessels are knowni to have done so. I'ndcr the proclamation fuel may be taken on by bellig- erent warsliips only with the consent of the canal authorities and in such amounts as will enable them to reach the nearest accessible neutral port; and the amount so taken on shall be deducted from the amount procurable in United States ports within three months thereafter. Now, it is charged the United States has showai partiality because Great Britain and not Germany happens to have colonies in the near vicinity where British ships may coal, while Germany has no such coaling facilities. Thus, it is intimated the United States shoidd balance the inequalities of geograpliical position by refusing to allow any warships of bellig(>r(-n<'i)artnieiit reserves right to censor all mail received in the pouches. Bkya.s. i f PART VIII. CENSORSHIP OF TELEGRAMS TRANSMITTED BY CABLE AND WIRELESS. 69 CENSORSHIP OF TELEGRAMS TRANSMITTED BY CABLE AND WIRELESS. Executive Order. Whereas Proclamations having been issued by me declaring the neutrality of the United States of America in tlie wars now existing between various European nations; and Whereas it is desirable to take precautions to msure the enforcement of said Proclamations hi so far as tlie use of radio comnmnication is concerned; It is now ordered, ])y virtue of authority vested hi me to establish regulations on the subject, that all radio stations withui tlio jurisdiction of the United Stattis of iVmerica are hereby proliibited from transmitting or receiving for delivery messages of an unneutral nature, and from in any way rendering to any one of the belligerents any unneutral service, during the continuance of hostilities. Tlie enforcement of this order is hereby delegated to the Secretary of the Navy, who is authorized and directed to take such action ui tlie premises as to him may appear nccessaiy. This order to take effect from and after this date. WooDRow Wilson. The White House, 3 August, 1914. [No. 2011.] File No. 841.721/18. TTie Secretary of State to Ambassador W. H. Page. [Telegram.] Department op State, Washington, August 15, 1914. The Western Union Telegraph Company has requested the department to make such representations to the British Government as will admit of a more reasonable attitude with respect to censorehips of cable messages by the War Office at London. The company claims that by reason of unnecessary exactions in tlie way of full addresses and signatures to every message, no matter how innocent its character, the capacity of the workuig Atlantic cables has been cut down just 50 per cent on account of the fact that these requirements have served to exactly double the number of wortls of the average message, which not only reduces the capacity of tlie cables at a time when the demand upon tlie cables exceed their capacity, but also doubles the cost to the public without any possible apparent advantage to the military operations in England. It is urged by the company that requiring full addresses in cases of well-known firms and fuU signatures is wholly unnecessary. The company also protests against the action of the British censors forbiddmg company to make inquiries respecting the delivery of messages. You will attempt to secure modification of reported British restrictions mentioned herein. Bryan. File No. 841.731/A. The Secretary of State to Amhassador 11'. H. Page. [Telegram.] Department of State, Washington , August 22, 1914. Departnu-nt is informeil that British censoi-s wiH not pass the usual service correspondence provided for ui Internatiomd Telegraph Kegulatiou whereby