By agreement between the Governments of the United States
and Great Britain the text of the American note, printed
below, setting forth the views of this Government in
opposition to British interference with American trade, was
made public in Washington on Dec. 31, 1914, and
simultaneously in London. At the same time copies of the
American communication were for the first time delivered to
the Ambassadors and Ministers of all the powers at
Washington, and the note was cabled by them to their
respective Governments. The American communication--it is
not a note, strictly speaking, because all notes are sent by
mail in diplomacy and never by telegraph--sets forth clearly
the conditions of which the American Government and people
complain resulting from the frequent seizures and detentions
by the British of American cargoes destined to neutral
European ports.
_The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador at London._
Department of State,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26, 1914.
The present condition of American foreign trade resulting from the
frequent seizures and detentions of American cargoes destined to
neutral European ports has become so serious as to require a candid
statement of the views of this Government in order that the British
Government may be fully informed as to the attitude of the United
States toward the policy which has been pursued by the British
authorities during the present war.
You will therefore communicate the following to his Majesty's
principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but in doing so you
will assure him that it is done in the most friendly spirit and in the
belief that frankness will better serve the continuance of cordial
relations between the two countries than silence, which may be
misconstrued into acquiescence in a course of conduct which this
Government cannot but consider to be an infringement upon the rights
of American citizens.
The Government of the United States has viewed with growing concern
the large number of vessels laden with American goods destined to
neutral ports in Europe which have been seized on the high seas, taken
into British ports, and detained sometimes for weeks by the British
authorities. During the early days of the war this Government assumed
that the policy adopted by the British Government was due to the
unexpected outbreak of hostilities and the necessity of immediate
action to prevent contraband from reaching the enemy.
For this reason it was not disposed to judge this policy harshly, or
protest it vigorously, although it was manifestly very injurious to
American trade with the neutral countries of Europe. This Government,
relying confidently upon the high regard which Great Britain has so
often exhibited in the past for the rights of other nations,
confidently awaited amendment of a course of action which denied to
neutral commerce the freedom to which it was entitled by the law of
nations.
[Illustration: COUNT LADISLAUS STADNICKI
Founder of the Polish Legion of the German Army.
(_Photo from Engelbrecht._)]
[Illustration: GENERAL VON KROBATKIN
Chief of the Austrian General Staff.
(_Photo from Paul Thompson._)]
This expectation seemed to be rendered the more assured by the
statement of the Foreign Office early in November that the British
Government was satisfied with guarantees offered by the Norwegian,
Swedish, and Danish Governments as to non-exportation of contraband
goods when consigned to named persons in the territories of those
Governments, and that orders had been given to the British fleet and
customs authorities to restrict interference with neutral vessels
carrying such cargoes so consigned to verification of ship's papers
and cargoes.
It is therefore a matter of deep regret that, though nearly five
months have passed since the war began, the British Government has not
materially changed its policy and do not treat less rigorously ships
and cargoes passing between neutral ports in the peaceful pursuit of
lawful commerce, which belligerents should protect rather than
interrupt. The greater freedom from detention and seizure which was
confidently expected to result from consigning shipments to definite
consignees rather than "to order" is still awaited.
It is needless to point out to his Majesty's Government, usually the
champion of the freedom of the seas and the rights of trade, that
peace, not war, is the normal relation between nations and that the
commerce between countries which are not belligerents should not be
interfered with by those at war unless such interference is manifestly
an imperative necessity to protect their national safety, and then
only to the extent that it is a necessity.
It is with no lack of appreciation of the momentous nature of the
present struggle in which Great Britain is engaged and with no selfish
desire to gain undue commercial advantage that this Government is
reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the present policy of his
Majesty's Government toward neutral ships and cargoes exceeds the
manifest necessity of a belligerent and constitutes restrictions upon
the rights of American citizens on the high seas which are not
justified by the rules of international law or required under the
principle of self-preservation.
The Government of the United States does not intend at this time to
discuss the propriety of including certain articles in the lists of
absolute and conditional contraband which have been proclaimed by his
Majesty. Open to objection as some of these seem to this Government,
the chief ground of present complaint is the treatment of cargoes of
both classes of articles when bound to neutral ports.
Articles listed as absolute contraband, shipped from the United States
and consigned to neutral countries, have been seized and detained on
the ground that the countries to which they were destined have not
prohibited the exportation of such articles. Unwarranted as such
detentions are, in the opinion of this Government, American exporters
are further perplexed by the apparent indecision of the British
authorities in applying their own rules to neutral cargoes.
For example, a shipment of copper from this country to a specified
consignee in Sweden was detained because, as was stated by Great
Britain, Sweden had placed no embargo on copper. On the other hand,
Italy not only prohibited the export of copper, but, as this
Government is informed, put in force a decree that shipments to
Italian consignees or "to order" which arrive in ports of Italy cannot
be exported or transshipped. The only exception Italy makes is of
copper which passes through that country in transit to another
country. In spite of these decrees, however, the British Foreign
Office has thus far declined to affirm that copper shipments consigned
to Italy will not be molested on the high seas. Seizures are so
numerous and delays so prolonged that exporters are afraid to send
their copper to Italy, steamship lines decline to accept it, and
insurers refuse to issue policies upon it. In a word, a legitimate
trade is being greatly impaired through uncertainty as to the
treatment which we may expect at the hands of the British authorities.
We feel that we are abundantly justified in asking for information as
to the manner in which the British Government propose to carry out the
policy which they have adopted in order that we may determine the
steps necessary to protect our citizens engaged in foreign trade in
their rights and from the serious losses to which they are liable
through ignorance of the hazards to which their cargoes are exposed.
In the case of conditional contraband, the policy of Great Britain
appears to this Government to be equally unjustified by the
established rules of international conduct. As evidence of this,
attention is directed to the fact that a number of the American
cargoes which have been seized consist of foodstuffs and other
articles of common use in all countries which are admittedly relative
contraband. In spite of the presumption of innocent use because
destined to neutral territory, the British authorities made these
seizures and detentions without, so far as we are informed, being in
possession of facts which warranted a reasonable belief that the
shipments had in realty a belligerent destination, as that term is
used in international law.
Mere suspicion is not evidence, and doubts should be resolved in favor
of neutral commerce, not against it. The effect upon trade in these
articles between neutral nations resulting from interrupted voyages
and detained cargoes is not entirely cured by reimbursement of the
owners for the damages which they have suffered, after investigation
has failed to establish an enemy destination. The injury is to
American commerce with neutral countries as a whole through the hazard
of the enterprise and the repeated diversion of goods from
establishing markets.
It also appears that cargoes of this character have been seized by the
British authorities because of a belief that, though not originally so
intended by the shippers, they will ultimately reach the territory of
the enemies of Great Britain. Yet this belief is frequently reduced to
a mere fear in view of the embargoes which have been decreed by the
neutral countries to which they are destined on the articles composing
the cargoes.
That a consignment "to order" of articles listed as conditional
contraband and shipped to a neutral port raises a legal presumption of
enemy destination appears to be directly contrary to the doctrines
previously held by Great Britain and thus stated by Lord Salisbury
during the South African war:
"Foodstuffs, though having a hostile destination, can be considered as
contraband of war only if they are for the enemy forces; it is not
sufficient that they are capable of being so used, it must be shown
that this was in fact their destination at the time of their seizure."
With this statement as to conditional contraband the views of this
Government are in entire accord, and upon this historic doctrine,
consistently maintained by Great Britain when a belligerent as well as
a neutral, American shippers were entitled to rely.
The Government of the United States readily admits the full right of a
belligerent to visit and search on the high seas the vessels of
American citizens or other neutral vessels carrying American goods and
to detain them WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY A BELIEF
THAT CONTRABAND ARTICLES ARE IN THEIR CARGOES; but his Majesty's
Government, judging by their own experience in the past, must realize
that this Government cannot without protest permit American ships or
American cargoes to be taken into British ports and there detained for
the purpose of searching generally for evidence of contraband or upon
presumptions created by special municipal enactments which are clearly
at variance with international law and practice.
This Government believes and earnestly hopes his Majesty's Government
will come to the same belief, that a course of conduct more in
conformity with the rules of international usage, which Great Britain
has strongly sanctioned for many years, will in the end better serve
the interests of belligerents as well as those of neutrals.
Not only is the situation a critical one to the commercial interests
of the United States, but many of the great industries of this country
are suffering because their products are denied long-established
markets in European countries, which, though neutral, are contiguous
to the nations at war. Producers and exporters, steamship and
insurance companies, are pressing, and not without reason, for relief
from the menace to transatlantic trade which is gradually but surely
destroying their business and threatening them with financial
disaster.
The Government of the United States, still relying upon the deep sense
of justice of the British Nation, which has been so often manifested
in the intercourse between the two countries during so many years of
uninterrupted friendship, expresses confidently the hope that his
Majesty's Government will realize the obstacles and difficulties which
their present policy has placed in the way of commerce between the
United States and the neutral countries of Europe and will instruct
its officials to refrain from all unnecessary interference with the
freedom of trade between nations which are sufferers, though not
participants, in the present conflict; and will in their treatment of
neutral ships and cargoes conform more closely to those rules
governing the maritime relations between belligerents and neutrals
which have received the sanction of the civilized world and in which
Great Britain has in other wars so strongly and successfully
advocated.
In conclusion, it should be impressed upon his Majesty's Government
that the present condition of American trade with the neutral European
countries is such that, if it does not improve, it may arouse a
feeling contrary to that which has so long existed between the
American and British people. Already it is becoming more and more the
subject of public criticism and complaint. There is an increasing
belief, doubtless not entirely unjustified, that the present British
policy toward American trade is responsible for the depression in
certain industries which depend upon European markets. The attention
of the British Government is called to this possible result of their
present policy, to show how widespread the effect is upon the
industrial life of the United States and to emphasize the importance
of removing the cause of complaint.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN,
Secretary of State.