Excellency of the identic note addressed to his Majesty's Government and
to Germany respecting an agreement on certain points as to the conduct
of the war at sea. The reply of the German Government to this note has
been published and it is not understood from the reply that the German
Government are prepared to abandon the practice of sinking British
merchant vessels by submarines, and it is evident from their reply that
they will not abandon the use of mines for offensive purposes on the
high seas as contrasted with the use of mines for defensive purposes
only within cannon range of their own harbors, as suggested by the
Government of the United States. This being so, it might appear
unnecessary for the British Government to make any further reply than to
take note of the German answer.
"We desire, however, to take the opportunity of making a fuller
statement of the whole position and of our feeling with regard to it. We
recognize with sympathy the desire of the Government of the United
States to see the European war conducted in accordance with the
previously recognized rules of international law and the dictates of
humanity. It is thus that the British forces have conducted the war, and
we are not aware that these forces, either naval or military, can have
laid to their charge any improper proceedings, either in the conduct of
hostilities or in the treatment of prisoners or wounded. On the German
side it has been very different.
"1. The treatment of civilian inhabitants in Belgium and the North of
France has been made public by the Belgian and French Governments and by
those who have had experience of it at first hand. Modern history
affords no precedent for the sufferings that have been inflicted on the
defenseless and non-combatant population in the territory that has been
in German military occupation. Even the food of the population was
confiscated until in Belgium an international commission, largely
influenced by American generosity and conducted under American auspices,
came to the relief of the population and secured from the German
Government a promise to spare what food was still left in the country,
though the Germans still continue to make levies in money upon the
defenseless population for the support of the German Army.
"2. We have from time to time received most terrible accounts of the
barbarous treatment to which British officers and soldiers have been
exposed after they have been taken prisoner, while being conveyed to
German prison camps. One or two instances have already been given to the
United States Government founded upon authentic and first-hand evidence
which is beyond doubt. Some evidence has been received of the hardships
to which British prisoners of war are subjected in the prison camps,
contrasting, we believe, most unfavorably with the treatment of German
prisoners in this country. We have proposed, with the consent of the
United States Government, that a commission of United States officers
should be permitted in each country to inspect the treatment of
prisoners of war. The United States Government have been unable to
obtain any reply from the German Government to this proposal, and we
remain in continuing anxiety and apprehension as to the treatment of
British prisoners of war in Germany.
"3. At the very outset of the war a German mine layer was discovered
laying a mine field on the high seas. Further mine fields have been laid
from time to time without warning, and, so far as we know, are still
being laid on the high seas, and many neutral as well as British vessels
have been sunk by them.
"4. At various times during the war German submarines have stopped and
sunk British merchant vessels, thus making the sinking of merchant
vessels a general practice, though it was admitted previously, if at
all, only as an exception, the general rule to which the British
Government have adhered being that merchant vessels, if captured, must
be taken before a prize court. In one case already quoted in a note to
the United States Government a neutral vessel carrying foodstuffs to an
unfortified town in Great Britain has been sunk. Another case is now
reported in which a German armed cruiser has sunk an American vessel,
the William P. Frye, carrying a cargo of wheat from Seattle to
Queenstown. In both cases the cargoes were presumably destined for the
civil population. Even the cargoes in such circumstances should not have
been condemned without the decision of a prize court, much less should
the vessels have been sunk. It is to be noted that both these cases
occurred before the detention by the British authorities of the
Wilhelmina and her cargo of foodstuffs, which the German Government
allege is the justification for their own action.
"The Germans have announced their intention of sinking British merchant
vessels by torpedo without notice and without any provision for the
safety of the crews. They have already carried out this intention in the
case of neutral as well as of British vessels, and a number of
non-combatant and innocent lives on British vessels, unarmed and
defenseless, have been destroyed in this way.
"5. Unfortified, open, and defenseless towns, such as Scarborough,
Yarmouth, and Whitby, have been deliberately and wantonly bombarded by
German ships of war, causing in some cases considerable loss of civilian
life, including women and children.
"6. German aircraft have dropped bombs on the east coast of England,
where there were no military or strategic points to be attacked. On the
other hand, I am aware of but two criticisms that have been made on
British action in all these respects:
"1. It is said that the British naval authorities also have laid some
anchored mines on the high seas. They have done so, but the mines were
anchored and so constructed that they would be harmless if they went
adrift, and no mines whatever were laid by the British naval authorities
till many weeks after the Germans had made a regular practice of laying
mines on the high seas.
"2. It is said that the British Government have departed from the view
of international law which they had previously maintained, that
foodstuffs destined for the civil population should never be interfered
with, this charge being founded on the submission to a prize court of
the cargo of the Wilhelmina. The special considerations affecting this
cargo have already been presented in a memorandum to the United States
Government, and I need not repeat them here.
"Inasmuch as the blockade of all foodstuffs is an admitted consequence
of blockade, it is obvious that there can be no universal rule based on
considerations of morality and humanity which is contrary to this
practice. The right to stop foodstuffs destined for the civil population
must therefore in any case be admitted if an effective 'cordon'
controlling intercourse with the enemy is drawn, announced, and
maintained. Moreover, independently of rights arising from belligerent
action in the nature of blockade, some other nations, differing from the
opinion of the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, have
held that to stop the food of the civil population is a natural and
legitimate method of bringing pressure to bear on an enemy country as it
is upon the defense of a besieged town. It is also upheld on the
authority of both Prince Bismarck and Count Caprivi, and therefore
presumably is not repugnant to German morality.
"The following are the quotations from Prince Bismarck and Count Caprivi
on this point. Prince Bismarck in answering, in 1885, an application
from the Kiel Chamber of Commerce for a statement of the view of the
German Government on the question of the right to declare as contraband
foodstuffs that were not intended for military forces said: 'I reply to
the Chamber of Commerce that any disadvantage our commercial and
carrying interests may suffer by the treatment of rice as contraband of
war does not justify our opposing a measure which it has been thought
fit to take in carrying on a foreign war. Every war is a calamity which
entails evil consequences not only on the combatants but also on
neutrals. These evils may easily be increased by the interference of a
neutral power with the way in which a third carries on the war to the
disadvantage of the subjects of the interfering power, and by this means
German commerce might be weighted with far heavier losses than a
transitory prohibition of the rice trade in Chinese waters. The measure
in question has for its object the shortening of the war by increasing
the difficulties of the enemy and is a justifiable step in war if
impartially enforced against all neutral ships.'
"Count Caprivi, during a discussion in the German Reichstag on the 4th
of March, 1892, on the subject of the importance of international
protection for private property at sea, made the following statements:
'A country may be dependent for her food or for her raw products upon
her trade. In fact, it may be absolutely necessary to destroy the
enemy's trade.' 'The private introduction of provisions into Paris was
prohibited during the siege, and in the same way a nation would be
justified in preventing the import of food and raw produce.'
"The Government of Great Britain have frankly declared, in concert with
the Government of France, their intention to meet the German attempt to
stop all supplies of every kind from leaving or entering British or
French ports by themselves stopping supplies going to or from Germany.
For this end, the British fleet has instituted a blockade effectively
controlling by cruiser 'cordon' all passage to and from Germany by sea.
The difference between the two policies is, however, that, while our
object is the same as that of Germany, we propose to attain it without
sacrificing neutral ships or non-combatant lives, or inflicting upon
neutrals the damage that must be entailed when a vessel and its cargo
are sunk without notice, examination, or trial.
"I must emphasize again that this measure is a natural and necessary
consequence of the unprecedented methods repugnant to all law and
morality which have been described above which Germany began to adopt at
the very outset of the war and the effects of which have been constantly
accumulating."
American Ambassador, London.
IV.
AMERICAN INQUIRY ON REPRISAL METHOD.
_The American Government on March 5 transmitted identic messages of
inquiry to the Ambassadors at London and Paris inquiring from both
England and France how the declarations in the Anglo-French note
proclaiming an embargo on all commerce between Germany and neutral
countries were to be carried into effect. The message to London was as
follows:_
WASHINGTON, March 5, 1915.
In regard to the recent communications received from the British and
French Governments concerning restraints upon commerce with Germany,
please communicate with the British Foreign Office in the sense
following:
The difficulty of determining action upon the British and French
declarations of intended retaliation upon commerce with Germany lies in
the nature of the proposed measures in their relation to commerce by
neutrals.
While it appears that the intention is to interfere with and take into
custody all ships, both outgoing and incoming, trading with Germany,
which is in effect a blockade of German ports, the rule of blockade that
a ship attempting to enter or leave a German port, regardless of the
character of its cargo, may be condemned is not asserted.
The language of the declaration is "the British and French Governments
will, therefore, hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships
carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It
is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would
otherwise be liable to condemnation."
The first sentence claims a right pertaining only to a state of
blockade. The last sentence proposes a treatment of ships and cargoes as
if no blockade existed. The two together present a proposed course of
action previously unknown to international law.
As a consequence neutrals have no standard by which to measure their
rights or to avoid danger to their ships and cargoes. The paradoxical
situation thus created should be changed and the declaring powers ought
to assert whether they rely upon the rules governing a blockade or the
rules applicable when no blockade exists.
The declaration presents other perplexities. The last sentence quoted
indicates that the rules of contraband are to be applied to cargoes
detained. The rules covering non-contraband articles carried in neutral
bottoms is that the cargoes shall be released and the ships allowed to
proceed.
This rule cannot, under the first sentence quoted, be applied as to
destination. What, then, is to be done with a cargo of non-contraband
goods detained under the declaration? The same question may be asked as
to conditional contraband cargoes.
The foregoing comments apply to cargoes destined for Germany. Cargoes
coming out of German forts present another problem under the terms of
the declaration. Under the rules governing enemy exports only goods
owned by enemy subjects in enemy bottoms are subject to seizure and
condemnation. Yet by the declaration it is purposed to seize and take
into port all goods of enemy "ownership and origin." The word "origin"
is particularly significant. The origin of goods destined to neutral
territory on neutral ships is not, and never has been, a ground for
forfeiture, except in case a blockade is declared and maintained. What,
then, would the seizure amount to in the present case except to delay
the delivery of the goods? The declaration does not indicate what
disposition would be made of such cargoes if owned by a neutral or if
owned by an enemy subject. Would a different rule be applied according
to ownership? If so, upon what principles of international law would it
rest? And upon what rule, if no blockade is declared and maintained,
could the cargo of a neutral ship sailing out of a German port be
condemned? If it is not condemned, what other legal course is there but
to release it?
While this Government is fully alive to the possibility that the methods
of modern naval warfare, particularly in the use of submarines for both
defensive and offensive operations, may make the former means of
maintaining a blockade a physical impossibility, it feels that it can be
urged with great force that there should be also some limit to "the
radius of activity," and especially so if this action by the
belligerents can be construed to be a blockade. It would certainly
create a serious state of affairs if, for example, an American vessel
laden with a cargo of German origin should escape the British patrol in
European waters only to be held up by a cruiser off New York and taken
into Halifax.
Similar cablegrams sent to Paris.
BRYAN.
V.
BRITISH REPLY TO THE AMERICAN INQUIRY.
_The reply from the British Government transmitted by the American
Ambassador at London to the Secretary of State concerning the method of
enforcing the reprisal order follows:_
LONDON, March 15, 1915.
Following is the full text of a note dated today and an Order in Council
I have just received from Grey:
"1. His Majesty's Government have had under careful consideration the
inquiries which, under instructions from your Government, your
Excellency addressed to me on the 8th inst., regarding the scope and
mode of application of the measures foreshadowed in the British and
French declarations of the 1st of March, for restricting the trade of
Germany. Your Excellency explained and illustrated by reference to
certain contingencies the difficulty of the United States Government in
adopting a definite attitude toward these measures by reason of
uncertainty regarding their bearing upon the commerce of neutral
countries.
"2. I can at once assure your Excellency that subject to the paramount
necessity of restricting German trade his Majesty's Government have made
it their first aim to minimize inconvenience to neutral commerce. From
the accompanying copy of the Order in Council, which is to be published
today, you will observe that a wide discretion is afforded to the prize
court in dealing with the trade of neutrals in such manner as may, in
the circumstances, be deemed just, and that full provision is made to
facilitate claims by persons interested in any goods placed in the
custody of the Marshal of the prize court under the order. I apprehend
that the perplexities to which your Excellency refers will for the most
part be dissipated by the perusal of this document, and that it is only
necessary for me to add certain explanatory observations.
"3. The effect of the Order in Council is to confer certain powers upon
the executive officers of his Majesty's Government. The extent to which
those powers will be actually exercised and the degree of severity with
which the measures of blockade authorized will be put into operation are
matters which will depend on the administrative orders issued by the
Government and the decisions of the authorities specially charged with
the duty of dealing with individual ships and cargoes, according to the
merits of each case. The United States Government may rest assured that
the instructions to be issued by his Majesty's Government to the fleet
and customs officials and Executive Committees concerned will impress
upon them the duty of acting with the utmost dispatch consistent with
the object in view, and of showing in every case such consideration for
neutrals as may be compatible with that object, which is, succinctly
stated, to establish a blockade to prevent vessels from carrying goods
for or coming from Germany."
[Illustration: HERR VON JAGOW
German Secretary for Foreign Affairs
_(Photo from Rogers)_]
[Illustration: MAXIMILIAN HARDEN
Editor of _Die Zukunft_, Germany's Most Brilliant Journalist, Who Has
Been Severe in His Strictures Upon the United States
_(Photo from Brown Bros.)_]
"4. His Majesty's Government has felt most reluctant, at the moment of
initiating a policy of blockade, to exact from neutral ships all the
penalties attaching to a breach of blockade. In their desire to
alleviate the burden which the existence of a state of war at sea must
inevitably impose on neutral sea-borne commerce, they declare their
intention to refrain altogether from the exercise of the right to
confiscate ships or cargoes which belligerents have always claimed in
respect of breaches of blockade. They restrict their claim to the
stopping of cargoes destined for or coming from the enemy's territory.
"5. As regards cotton, full particulars of the arrangements contemplated
have already been explained. It will be admitted that every possible
regard has been had to the legitimate interests of the American cotton
trade.
"6. Finally, in reply to the penultimate paragraph of your Excellency's
note, I have the honor to state that it is not intended to interfere
with neutral vessels carrying enemy cargo of non-contraband nature
outside European waters, including the Mediterranean."
(Here follows the text of the Order in Council, which already has been
printed.)
American Ambassador, London.
VI.
FRENCH GOVERNMENT'S ANSWER.
_The French Government transmitted the following message:_
PARIS, March 14, 1915.
French Government replies as follows:
"In a letter dated March 7 your Excellency was good enough to draw my
attention to the views of the Government of the United States regarding
the recent communications from the French and British Governments
concerning a restriction to be laid upon commerce with Germany.
According to your Excellency's letter, the declaration made by the
allied Governments presents some uncertainty as regards its application,
concerning which the Government of the United States desires to be
enlightened in order to determine what attitude it should take.
"At the same time your Excellency notified me that, while granting the
possibility of using new methods of retaliation against the new use to
which submarines have been put, the Government of the United States was
somewhat apprehensive that the allied belligerents might (if their
action is to be construed as constituting a blockade) capture in waters
near America any ships which might have escaped the cruisers patrolling
European waters. In acknowledging receipt of your Excellency's
communication I have the honor to inform you that the Government of the
republic has not failed to consider this point as presented by the
Government of the United States, and I beg to specify clearly the
conditions of application, as far as my Government is concerned of the
declaration of the allied Governments. As well set forth by the Federal
Government, the old methods of blockade cannot be entirely adhered to in
view of the use Germany has made of her submarines, and also by reason
of the geographical situation of that country. In answer to the
challenge to the neutrals as well as to its own adversaries contained in
the declaration, by which the German Imperial Government stated that it
considered the seas surrounding Great Britain and the French coast on
the Channel as a military zone, and warned neutral vessels not to enter
the same on account of the danger they would run, the allied Governments
have been obliged to examine what measures they could adopt to interrupt
all maritime communication with the German Empire and thus keep it
blockaded by the naval power of the two allies, at the same time,
however, safeguarding as much as possible the legitimate interests of
neutral powers and respecting the laws of humanity which no crime of
their enemy will induce them to violate.
"The Government of the republic, therefore, reserves to itself the right
of bringing into a French or allied port any ship carrying a cargo
presumed to be of German origin, destination, or ownership, but it will
not go to the length of seizing any neutral ship except in case of
contraband. The discharged cargo shall not be confiscated. In the event
of a neutral proving his lawful ownership of merchandise destined to
Germany, he shall be entirely free to dispose of same, subject to
certain conditions. In case the owner of the goods is a German, they
shall simply be sequestrated during the war.
"Merchandise of enemy origin shall only be sequestrated when it is at
the same time the property of an enemy. Merchandise belonging to
neutrals shall be held at the disposal of its owner to be returned to
the port of departure.
"As your Excellency will observe, these measures, while depriving the
enemy of important resources, respect the rights of neutrals and will
not in any way jeopardize private property, as even the enemy owner will
only suffer from the suspension of the enjoyment of his rights during
the term of hostilities.
"The Government of the republic, being desirous of allowing neutrals
every facility to enforce their claims, (here occurred an undecipherable
group of words,) give the prize court, an independent tribunal,
cognizance of these questions, and in order to give the neutrals as
little trouble as possible it has specified that the prize court shall
give sentence within eight days, counting from the date on which the
case shall have been brought before it.
"I do not doubt, Mr. Ambassador, that the Federal Government, comparing
on the one hand the unspeakable violence with which the German Military
Government threatens neutrals, the criminal actions unknown in maritime
annals already perpetrated against neutral property and ships, and even
against the lives of neutral subjects or citizens, and on the other hand
the measures adopted by the allied Governments of France and Great
Britain, respecting the laws of humanity and the rights of individuals,
will readily perceive that the latter have not overstepped their strict
rights as belligerents.