The following letter is the most exhaustive document that
has come from the Administration at Washington since the
outbreak of the war dealing with any aspect of the relations
of this country toward that conflict. Its length is due to
the fact that it is intended as a categorical denial of the
different charges that have been made and of the arguments
current in German circles accusing the Administration of
unfriendliness to Germany and Austria-Hungary. Senator Stone
was interested in having these charges answered for two
reasons: First, there is a large German population in St.
Louis, the chief city of his State, and, second, he is
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. Senator
Stone wrote his letter of inquiry on Jan. 8, saying that he
had received many letters from sympathizers with Germany and
Austria who believed the United States Government had been
showing partiality to England, France, and Russia.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 1915.
_Hon. William J. Stone, Chairman Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C._
Dear Mr. Stone: I have received your letter of the 8th inst. referring
to frequent complaints or charges made in one form or another through
the press that this Government has shown partiality to Great 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 sympathizers with the latter powers. You summarize the various
grounds of these complaints and ask that you be furnished with
whatever information the department may have touching these points of
complaint in order that you may be informed as to what the true
situation is in regard to these matters.
In order that you may have such information as the department has on
the subjects referred to in your letter, I will take them up seriatim.
_(1) Freedom of communication by submarine cables versus censored
communication by wireless._
The reason that wireless messages and cable messages require different
treatment by a neutral Government is as follows:
Communication by wireless cannot be interrupted by a belligerent. With
a submarine cable it is otherwise. The possibility of cutting the
cable exists, and if a belligerent 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 point of view of a
neutral Government, is that messages sent out from a wireless station
in neutral territory may be received by belligerent 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
unneutral.
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
submarine cable is incapable of becoming a means of direct
communication with a warship on the high seas; hence its use cannot,
as a rule, 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 this 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 therefore no representations have been made.
Until such a case is presented in concrete form this Government 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
finally delivered. When mail is sent to belligerent countries open and
is of a neutral and private character 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 waters 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
investigation, 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 offending Government with a
declaration that such procedure, if true, is an unwarranted exercise
of jurisdiction over American vessels in which this Government will
not acquiesce.
An American private vessel entering voluntarily the territorial waters
of a belligerent becomes subject to its municipal laws, as do the
persons on board the vessel.
There have appeared in certain publications the assertion that failure
to protest in these cases is an abandonment of the principle for which
the United States went to war in 1812. If the failure to protest were
true, which it is not, the principle involved is entirely different
from the one appealed to against unjustifiable impressment of
Americans in the British Navy in time of peace.
_(4) Submission without protest to British violations of the rules
regarding absolute and conditional contraband as laid down in The
Hague Conventions, the Declaration of London, and international law._
There is no Hague Convention which deals with absolute or conditional
contraband and, as the Declaration of London is not in force, the
rules of international law only apply. As to the articles to be
regarded as contraband, there is no general agreement between nations.
It is the practice of a century, either in time of peace or after the
outbreak of war, to declare the articles which it will consider as
absolute or conditional contraband. It is true that a neutral
Government is seriously affected by this declaration, as the rights of
its subjects or citizens may be impaired. But the rights and interests
of belligerents and neutrals are opposed in respect to contraband
articles and trade and there is no tribunal to which questions of
difference may be readily submitted.
The record of the United States in the past is not free from
criticism. When neutral this Government has stood for a restricted
list of absolute and conditional contraband. As a belligerent, we have
contended for a liberal list, according to our conception of the
necessities of the case.
The United States has made earnest representations to Great Britain in
regard to the seizure and detention by the British authorities of all
American ships or cargoes bona fide destined to neutral ports, on the
ground that such seizures and detentions were contrary to the existing
rules of international law. It will be recalled, however, that
American courts have established various rules 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 the circumstances
whether the ostensible was the real destination. They have held that
the shipment of articles of contraband to a neutral 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 port of delivery. It is thus seen
that some of the doctrines which appear to bear harshly upon neutrals
at the present time are analogous to or outgrowths from policies
adopted by the United States when it was a belligerent. The
Government, therefore, cannot consistently protest against the
application of rules which it has followed in the past, unless they
have not been practiced as heretofore.
_(5) Acquiescence without protest to the inclusion of copper and other
articles in the British lists of absolute contraband._
The United States has now under consideration the question of the
right of a belligerent to include "copper unwrought" in its list of
absolute contraband instead of in its list of conditional contraband.
As the Government of the United States has in the past placed "all
articles from which ammunition 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 the United States acquiescing in
Great Britain's seizure of copper shipments. In every case in which it
has been done vigorous representations have been made to the British
Government, and the representatives of the United States have pressed
for the release of the shipments.
_(6) Submission without protest to interference with American trade to
neutral countries in conditional and absolute contraband._
The fact that the commerce of the United States is interrupted by
Great Britain is consequent upon the superiority of her navy on the
high 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 department's recent note to the British
Government, which has been made public, in regard to detentions 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,
while other complaints demand the prohibition of trade in contraband,
which appears 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 Great Britain to cut off 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 condemnation by Great
Britain of an American vessel with a belligerent destination. Until a
case arises and the Government has taken action upon it, criticism is
premature and unwarranted. The United States in its note of Dec. 28 to
the British Government strongly contended for the principle of freedom
of trade in articles of conditional contraband not destined to the
belligerent's forces.
_(8) Submission to British interference with trade in petroleum,
rubber, leather, wool, &c._
Petrol and other petroleum products have been proclaimed by Great
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
today are largely a question of motive power through mechanical
devices. It is therefore difficult to argue successfully against the
inclusion of petroleum among the articles of contraband. As to the
detention of cargoes of petroleum going to neutral countries, this
Government has, thus far, successfully obtained the release in every
case of detention or seizure which has been brought to its attention.
Great Britain and France have placed rubber on the absolute contraband
list, and leather on the conditional contraband list. Rubber is
extensively used in the manufacture and operation of motors, and, like
petrol, is regarded by some authorities as essential to motive power
today. Leather is even more widely used in cavalry and infantry
equipment. It is understood that both rubber and leather, together
with wool, have been embargoed by most of the belligerent countries.
It will 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 has 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 by international law or by
municipal statute. It has never been the policy of this Government to
prevent the shipment of arms or ammunition into belligerent territory,
except in the case of neighboring American republics, and then only
when civil strife prevailed. Even to this extent the belligerents 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 arms and ammunition
furnished by manufacturers in Germany to the belligerents in the
Russo-Japanese war, and in the recent Balkan wars, to establish 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 direction 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 Oct. 15 last, entitled "Neutrality and Trade in Contraband."
Acting in conformity with the propositions there set forth, the United
States has itself taken no part in contraband traffic, and has, so far
as possible, lent its influence toward equal treatment for all
belligerents in the matter of purchasing arms and ammunition of
private persons in the United States.
_(10) The United States has not suppressed the sale of dumdum bullets
to Great Britain._
On Dec. 5 last the German Ambassador addressed a note to the
department stating that the British Government had ordered from the
Winchester Repeating Arms Company 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 Company,
the correctness of which the company has confirmed to the department
by telegraph. In this statement the company categorically denies that
it has received an order for such guns and cartridges 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 since October of this year by the Union Metallic
Cartridge Company for the armament of the English Army.
In reply the department referred to the letter of Dec. 10, 1914, of
the Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge Company of New York to the
Ambassador, called forth by certain newspaper reports of statements
alleged to have been made by the Ambassador in regard to the sales by
that company of soft-nosed bullets. From this letter, a copy of which
was sent to the department by the company, it appears that instead of
8,000,000 cartridges having been sold only a little over 117,000 were
manufactured 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 manufactured theretofore, and that such cartridges cannot 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 give
the Ambassador any evidence that he may require 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
were sold, and that from this list it appeared that the cartridges
were sold to firms 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 North
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 the contending armies in Europe cartridges whose use would
contravene The Hague Conventions, the department would be glad to be
furnished with this evidence, and that the President would, in case
any American company is shown to be engaged in this traffic, use his
influence to prevent so far as possible sales of such ammunition to
the powers engaged in the 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 both the Ambassador's note and the department's reply
have appeared in the press.
The department has received no other complaints of alleged sales of
dumdum bullets by American citizens to belligerent Governments.
_(11) British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and
intercept neutral vessels._
The complaint is unjustified 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 withdrawn.
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 war President Grant
issued a proclamation warning belligerent warships against hovering in
the vicinity of American ports for purposes of observation or hostile
acts. The same policy has been maintained in the present war, and in
all of the recent proclamations of neutrality the President states
that such practice by belligerent warships 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 been disregarded in a comparatively
few instances by Great Britain, but the same is true of all 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 of
release. The department does not know of any cases except one or two,
which are still under investigation, in which naturalized Germans have
not been released upon representations by this Government. There have,
however, come to the department's notice authentic cases in which
American passports have been fraudulently obtained and used by certain
German subjects.
The Department of Justice has recently apprehended at least four
persons of German nationality who, it is alleged, obtained American
passports under pretense of being 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 passports through fraud for the
purpose of securing safe passage for German officers and reservists
desiring 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 further misuse of American
passports.
_(13) Change of policy in regard to loans to belligerents._
War loans in this country were disapproved because inconsistent with
the spirit of neutrality. 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 Governments alike, 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 in the case presented by the sale of arms and ammunition.
The taking of money out of the United States during such a war as this
might seriously embarrass the Government in case it needed to borrow
money, and it might also seriously impair this nation's ability to
assist the neutral nations which, though not participants in the war,
are compelled to bear a heavy burden 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 with
the belligerents seeking the loan.
The result would be that great numbers of the American people might
become more earnest partisans, having material interest in the success
of the belligerent whose bonds they hold. These purchasers would not
be confined to a few, but would spread generally throughout the
country, so that the people would be divided into groups of partisans,
which would result in intense bitterness and might cause an
undesirable if not a serious situation. On the other hand, contracts
for and sales of contraband are mere matters of trade. The
manufacturer, unless peculiarly sentimental, would sell to one
belligerent as readily as he would to another. No general spirit of
partisanship is aroused--no sympathies excited. The whole transaction
is merely a matter of business.
This Government has not been advised that any general loans have been
made by foreign Governments in this country since the President
expressed his wish that loans of this character should not be made.
_(14) Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral vessels
and in British ports and their imprisonment._
The general charge as to the arrest of American-born citizens on board
neutral vessels and in British ports, the ignoring of their passports,
and their confinement in jails, requires evidence to support it. That
there have been cases of injustice of this sort is unquestionably
true, but Americans in Germany 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 which has been
brought to the attention of the Department of State has been properly
investigated, and if the facts warranted a demand for release has been
made.
_(15) Indifference to confinement of non-combatants in detention camps
in England and France._
As to the detention of non-combatants confined in concentration camps,
all the belligerents, 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 under the
conditions in all countries, 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 countries, the department on Nov. 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 investigation 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 or British troops and war
materials across the territory of the United States._
The department has had no specific case of the passage of convoys or
troops across American 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 belligerents who have requested
the privilege has been permitted on condition that they travel as
individuals and not as an organized, uniformed, or armed bodies. The
German Embassy has advised the department that it would not be likely
to avail itself of the privilege, but Germany's ally, Austria-Hungary,
did so.
Only one case raising the question of the transit of war material
owned by a belligerent across United States territory has come to the
department's notice. This 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 S.S. Geier and the
collier Locksun at Honolulu._
The Geier entered Honolulu on Oct. 15 in an unseaworthy condition. The
commanding 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 Nov. 7, to make repairs
and leave the port, or, failing to do so, to be interned. A longer
period would have been contrary to international practice, which does
not permit a vessel to remain for a long time in a neutral port for
the purpose 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 depart from the harbor.
Shortly after the Geier entered the Port of Honolulu the steamer
Locksun arrived. It was found that this vessel had delivered coal to
the Geier en route and had accompanied her toward Hawaii. As she had
thus constituted herself a tender or collier to the Geier, she was
accorded the same treatment and interned on Nov. 7.
_(18) Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling of warships
in Panama Canal Zone._
By proclamation of Nov. 13, 1914, certain special restrictions were
placed on the coaling of warships or their tenders or colliers in the
Canal Zone. These regulations were framed through the collaboration of
the State, Navy, and War Departments and without the slightest
reference to favoritism to the belligerents. Before these regulations
were proclaimed war vessels could procure coal of the Panama Railway
in the Zone ports, but no belligerent vessels are known to have done
so.
Under the proclamation fuel may be taken on by belligerent warships
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
that the United States has shown 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 should balance the inequalities
of geographical position by refusal to allow any warships of
belligerents to coal in the Canal Zone until the war is over. As no
German warship has sought to obtain coal in the Canal Zone the charge
of discrimination rests upon a possibility which during several
months of warfare has failed to materialize.
_(19) Failure to protest against the modifications of the Declaration
of London by the British Government._
The German Foreign Office presented to the diplomats in Berlin a
memorandum dated Oct. 10 calling attention to violations of and
changes in the Declaration of London by the British Government, and
inquiring as to the attitude of the United States toward such action
on the part of the Allies. The substance of the memorandum was
forthwith telegraphed to the department on Oct. 22, and was replied to
shortly thereafter to the effect that the United States had withdrawn
its suggestion, made early in the war, that for the sake of uniformity
the Declaration of London should be adopted as a temporary code of
naval warfare during the present war, owing to the unwillingness of
the belligerents to accept the declaration without changes and
modifications, and that thenceforth the United States would insist
that the rights of the United States and its citizens in the war
should be governed by the existing rules of international law.
As this Government is not now interested in the adoption of the
Declaration of London by the belligerents, the modifications by the
belligerents in that code of naval warfare are of no concern to it,
except as they adversely affect the rights of the United States and
those of its citizens as defined by international law. In so far as
those rights have been infringed the department has made every effort
to obtain redress for the losses sustained.
_(20) Generally unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany and
Austria._
If any American citizens, partisans of Germany and Austria-Hungary,
feel that this Administration is acting in a way injurious to the
cause of those countries, this feeling results from the fact that on
the high seas the German and Austro-Hungarian naval power is thus far
inferior to the British. It is the business of a belligerent operating
on the high seas, not the duty of a neutral, to prevent contraband
from reaching an enemy.
Those in this country who sympathize with Germany and Austria-Hungary
appear to assume that some obligation rests upon this Government, in
the performance of its neutral duty, to prevent all trade in
contraband, and thus to equalize the difference due to the relative
naval strength of the belligerents. No such obligation exists; it
would be an unneutral act, an act of partiality on the part of this
Government to adopt such a policy if the Executive had the power to
do so. If Germany and Austria-Hungary cannot import contraband from
this country it is not, because of that fact, the duty of the United
States to close its markets to the Allies. The markets of this country
are open upon equal terms to all the world, to every nation,
belligerent or neutral.
The foregoing categorical replies to specific complaints is sufficient
answer to the charge of unfriendliness to Germany and Austria-Hungary.
I am, my dear Senator, very sincerely yours,