The Secretary of State to
the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
(Stone)
Washington,
January 20, 1915.
Dear Mr. Stone: I have received your letter of
the 8th instant, referring to frequent complaints or charges made in one
form or another through the press
[Page VIII]
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:
Communications by wireless can not 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 can not, 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.
[Page IX]
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 for a country, 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 can not
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.
[Page X]
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 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 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 December
281 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, etc.
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 to-day 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
to-day. 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
[Page XI]
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 “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 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 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 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 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 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 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
[Page XII]
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 for
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 any 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 belligerent 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 purchases 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.
[Page XIII]
(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 promptly 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 Frame.
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 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
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 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 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 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 steamship
“Geier” and the collier “Locksun” at Honolulu.
The Geier entered Honolulu on October 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
November 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
November 7.
[Page XIV]
(18) Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling
of warships in Panama Canal Zone.
By proclamation of November 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 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 refusing to allow any warships of belligerents
to coal in the Canal 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 October 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 October 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) General 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 can not 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 are sufficient
answer to the charge of unfriendliness to Germany and
Austria-Hungary.
I am [etc.]
