By Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great
Britain
The State Department in Washington and the Foreign Office in
London, by agreement, made public simultaneously on Jan. 10,
1915, the British reply to the American protest against the
undue detention of American ships and cargoes seized for
search for contraband. The answer, signed by Sir Edward
Grey, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
was addressed to Walter Hines Page, the American Ambassador
in London, who cabled it to Washington on Jan. 7. The note
is preliminary, and was to be followed by a more detailed
reply.
_The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American
Ambassador._
FOREIGN OFFICE, Jan. 7, 1915.
Your Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note
of the 28th of December. It is being carefully examined and the points
raised in it are receiving consideration, as the result of which a
reply shall be addressed to your Excellency dealing in detail with the
issues raised and the points to which the United States Government
have drawn attention. This consideration and the preparation of the
reply will necessarily require some time, and I therefore desire to
send without further delay some preliminary observations which will, I
trust, help to clear the ground and remove some misconceptions that
seem to exist.
Let me say at once that we entirely recognize the most friendly spirit
referred to by your Excellency and that we desire to reply in the same
spirit and in the belief that, as your Excellency states, frankness
will best serve the continuance of cordial relations between the two
countries.
His Majesty's Government cordially concur in the principle enunciated
by the Government of the United States that a belligerent, in dealing
with trade between neutrals, should not interfere unless such
interference is necessary to protect the belligerent's national
safety, and then only to the extent to which this is necessary. We
shall endeavor to keep our action within the limits of this principle
on the understanding that it admits our right to interfere when such
interference is not with "bona-fide" trade between the United States
and another neutral country, but with trade in contraband destined for
the enemy's country; and we are ready, whenever our action may
unintentionally exceed this principle, to make redress.
We think that much misconception exists as to the extent to which we
have, in practice, interfered with trade. Your Excellency's note seems
to hold his Majesty's Government responsible for the present condition
of trade with neutral countries, and it is stated that, through the
action of his Majesty's Government, the products of the great
industries of the United States have been denied long-established
markets in European countries which, though neutral, are contiguous to
the seat of war. Such a result is far from being the intention of his
Majesty's Government, and they would exceedingly regret that it should
be due to their action.
I have been unable to obtain complete or conclusive figures showing
what the state of trade with these neutral countries has been
recently, and I can, therefore, only ask that some further
consideration should be given to the question whether United States
trade with these neutral countries has been so seriously affected. The
only figures as to the total volume of trade that I have seen are
those for the exports from New York for the month of November, 1914,
and they are as follows, compared with the month of November, 1913:
Exports from New York for November, 1913, and November, 1914,
respectively: Denmark, $558,000, $7,101,000; Sweden, $377,000,
$2,858,000; Norway, $477,000, $2,318,000; Italy, $2,971,000,
$4,781,000; Holland, $4,389,000, $3,960,000.
It is true that there may have been a falling off in cotton exports,
as to which New York figures would be no guide, but his Majesty's
Government have been most careful not to interfere with cotton, and
its place on the free list has been scrupulously maintained.
We do not wish to lay too much stress upon incomplete statistics; the
figures above are not put forward as conclusive, and we are prepared
to examine any further evidence with regard to the state of trade with
these neutral countries, which may point to a different conclusion or
show that it is the action of his Majesty's Government in particular
and not the existence of a state of war and consequent diminution of
purchasing power and shrinkage of trade, which is responsible for
adverse effects upon trade with the neutral countries.
That the existence of a state of war on such a scale has had a very
adverse effect upon certain great industries, such as cotton, is
obvious, but it is submitted that this is due to the general cause of
diminished purchasing power of such countries as France, Germany, and
the United Kingdom rather than to interference with trade with neutral
countries. In the matter of cotton it may be recalled that the British
Government gave special assistance through the Liverpool Cotton
Exchange to the renewal of transactions in the cotton trade of not
only the United Kingdom, but of many neutral countries.
Your Excellency's note refers in particular to the detention of
copper. The figures taken from official returns for the export of
copper from the United States for Italy for the months during which
the war has been in progress up to the end of the first three weeks of
December are as follows:
1913--Fifteen million two hundred and two thousand pounds.
1914--Thirty-six million two hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds.
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland are not shown separately for
the whole period in the United States returns, but are included in the
heading "Other Europe"; that is, Europe other than the United Kingdom,
Russia, France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Holland, and Italy. The
corresponding figures under this heading are as follows:
1913--Seven million two hundred and seventy-one thousand pounds.
1914--Thirty-five million three hundred and forty-seven thousand
pounds.
With such figures the presumption is very strong that the bulk of
copper consigned to these countries has recently been intended not for
their own use, but for that of a belligerent who cannot import it
direct. It is therefore an imperative necessity for the safety of this
country while it is at war that his Majesty's Government should do all
in its power to stop such part of this import of copper as is not
genuinely destined for neutral countries.
Your Excellency does not quote any particular shipment of copper to
Sweden which has been detained. There are, however, four consignments
to Sweden at the present time of copper and aluminium which, though
definitely consigned to Sweden, are, according to positive evidence in
the possession of his Majesty's Government, definitely destined for
Germany.
I cannot believe that, with such figures before them and in such cases
as those just mentioned, the Government of the United States would
question the propriety of the action of his Majesty's Government in
taking suspected cargoes to a prize court, and we are convinced that
it cannot be in accord with the wish either of the Government or of
the people of the United States to strain the international code in
favor of private interests so as to prevent Great Britain from taking
such legitimate means for this purpose as are in her power.
With regard to the seizure of foodstuffs, to which your Excellency
refers, his Majesty's Government are prepared to admit that foodstuffs
should not be detained and put into a prize court without the
presumption that they are intended for the armed forces of the enemy
or the enemy Government. We believe that this rule has been adhered to
in practice hitherto, but if the United States Government have
instances to the contrary we are prepared to examine them, and it is
our present intention to adhere to the rule, though we cannot give an
unlimited and unconditional undertaking, in view of the departure by
those against whom we are fighting from hitherto accepted rules of
civilization and humanity and the uncertainty as to the extent to
which such rules may be violated by them in future.
From the 4th of August last to the 3d of January the number of
steamships proceeding from the United States for Holland, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, and Italy has been 773. Of these there are 45 which
have had consignments of cargoes placed in the prize court, while of
the ships themselves only eight have been placed in the prize court,
and one of these has since been released.
It is, however, essential under modern conditions that where there is
real ground for suspecting the presence of contraband the vessel
should be brought into port for examination. In no other way can the
right of search be exercised, and but for this practice it would have
to be completely abandoned.
Information was received by us that special instructions had been
given to ship rubber from the United States under another designation
to escape notice, and such cases have occurred in several instances.
Only by search in a port can such cases, when suspected, be discovered
and proved.
The necessity for examination in a port may also be illustrated by a
hypothetical instance connected with cotton, which has not yet
occurred. Cotton is not specifically mentioned in your Excellency's
note, but I have seen public statements made in the United States that
the attitude of his Majesty's Government with regard to cotton has
been ambiguous and thereby responsible for depression in the cotton
trade.
There has never been any foundation for this allegation. His Majesty's
Government have never put cotton on the list of contraband; they have
throughout the war kept it on the free list, and on every occasion
when questioned on the point they have stated their intention of
adhering to this practice. But information has reached us that,
precisely because we have declared our intention of not interfering
with cotton, ships carrying cotton will be specially selected to carry
concealed contraband, and we have been warned that copper will be
concealed in bales of cotton.
Whatever suspicions we have entertained we have not so far made these
a ground for detaining any ship carrying cotton, but should we have
information giving us real reason to believe in the case of a
particular ship that the bales of cotton concealed copper or other
contraband the only way to prove our case would be to examine and
weigh the bales, a process that could be carried out only by bringing
the vessel into a port. In such a case, if examination justifies the
action of his Majesty's Government, the case shall be brought before a
prize court and dealt with in the ordinary way.
That the decisions of British prize courts hitherto have not been
unfavorable to neutrals is evidenced by the decision in the Miramichi
case. This case, which was decided against the Crown, laid down that
the American shipper was to be paid even when he had sold a cargo,
cost, insurance, and freight, and when the risk of loss after the
cargo had been shipped did not apply to him at all.
It has further been represented to his Majesty's Government, though
this subject is not dealt with in your Excellency's note, that our
embargoes on the export of some articles, more especially rubber, have
interfered with commercial interests in the United States. It is, of
course, difficult for his Majesty's Government to permit the export of
rubber from British dominions to the United States at a time when
rubber is essential to belligerent countries for carrying on the war,
and when a new trade in exporting rubber from the United States in
suspiciously large quantities to neutral countries has actually sprung
up since the war.
It would be impossible to permit the export of rubber from Great
Britain unless the right of his Majesty's Government were admitted to
submit to a prize court cargoes of rubber exported from the United
States which they believed to be destined for an enemy country and
reasonable latitude of action for this purpose were conceded. But his
Majesty's Government have now provisionally come to an arrangement
with the rubber exporters in Great Britain which will permit of
licenses being given under proper guarantees for the export of rubber
to the United States.
We are confronted with the growing danger that neutral countries
contiguous to the enemy will become, on a scale hitherto
unprecedented, a base of supplies for the armed soldiers of our
enemies and for materials for manufacturing armament. The trade
figures of imports show how strong this tendency is, but we have no
complaint to make of the attitude of the Governments of those
countries, which, so far as we are aware, have not departed from
proper rules of neutrality. We endeavor in the interest of our own
national safety to prevent this danger by intercepting goods really
destined for the enemy without interfering with those which are "bona
fide" neutral.
Since the outbreak of the war the Government of the United States have
changed their previous practice and have prohibited the publication of
manifests till thirty days after the departure of vessels from the
United States ports. We had no "locus standi" for complaining of this
change and did not complain. But the effect of it must be to increase
the difficulty of ascertaining the presence of contraband and to
render necessary in the interests of our national safety the
examination and detention of more ships than would have been the case
if the former practice had continued.
Pending a more detailed reply I would conclude by saying that his
Majesty's Government do not desire to contest the general principles
of law on which they understand the note of the United States to be
based, and desire to restrict their action solely to interferences
with contraband destined for the enemy.
His Majesty's Government are prepared, whenever a cargo coming from
the United States is detained, to explain the case on which such
detention has taken place, and would gladly enter into any arrangement
by which mistakes can be avoided and reparation secured promptly, when
any injury to the neutral owners of a ship or cargo has been
improperly caused, for they are most desirous, in the interest both of
the United States and of other neutral countries, that British action
should not interfere with the normal importation and use by the
neutral countries of goods from the United States.
I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, your
Excellency's most obedient humble servant,