File No. 763.72112/630
The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State
Washington, January 1, 1915.
No. 5]
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your note of the 24th ultimo relative to turpentine and rosin.1
The general subject of the treatment of contraband will doubtless form the subject of an official communication from my Government. In the meantime I venture to make some observations on certain statements in your note under reply.
You state that on November 1 I addressed to you a note to the effect “that Sir Edward Grey had advised me that rosin and turpentine were not on the British list of contraband and that the British Government had no intention of interfering with shipments of these articles.” In that note I stated in reply to an enquiry from your Department that the British Government had not in fact any present intention of interfering with turpentine and rosin. I added that in order to prevent misapprehension or the establishment of a precedent which might prove embarrassing to both our Governments in the future Sir Edward Grey wished me to point out that it would not be advisable to make official statements in answer to individual enquiries as to whether or not specified articles can be held to be contraband. I added that the proper interpretation of the contraband lists was a matter which each government must reserve for the interpretation Of its prize courts.
At the time when this correspondence took place turpentine and rosin although classed as naval stores were obviously no longer, as [Page 380] in past times, contraband of war for that reason, seeing that the construction of warships has radically changed.
Unfortunately it has since transpired that turpentine and rosin are of great importance in certain warlike manufactures and that their free importation to an enemy country would be of assistance to that country in belligerent operations.
In accordance with the principle embodied for instance in. President Johnson’s proclamation of April 29, 1866, these articles assumed the character of contraband Of war as being” articles from which ammunition is manufactured” and were consequently placed on the contraband list. A notification to this effect was officially made on December 22, greatly to the regret of His Majesty’s Government, which found itself forced by the necessity of war to interfere with the free movement of an article in which American and British capital was largely interested.
In taking this measure His Majesty’s Government followed the usage of all maritime nations and notably of the United States when at war, who have invariably claimed and exercised the right of making additions from tune to time to their lists of contraband—a right explicitly confirmed in the Declaration of London. But of course in doing this they are bound by the rule that articles declared contraband must be paid for in full if embarked before the date when the official notification was made.
This was the procedure followed in the case of the shipments of copper seized by British ships. As you are doubtless aware, in every case of a cargo seized which was embarked before notification its full value has been paid, except when the cargo itself has been released. I presume that in your note the course against which you protest is not the seizure but the confiscation of such goods. The confiscation of goods shipped in ignorance would be clearly unwarranted and has not taken place.
Should however your protest be directed against the seizure itself such a protest would be based on a novel doctrine of international law which altogether conflicts with the decisions of the United States prize courts. For the general usage is, I believe, rightly defined in the annex to the Declaration of London in which it is stated” that it would be unjust to capture the ship and condemn the contraband if shipped in ignorance of the declaration but on the other hand the cruiser cannot be obliged to let go on to the enemy goods suitable for use in the war of which he may stand in urgent need.”
His Majesty’s Government propose to be guided in the future as in the past by the accepted principles of international law as gradually evolved between the two countries. There, will doubtless be difficulties and disagreements in the application of accepted principles but I trust there will be no dispute as to the principles them selves or as to their binding force on both parties.
I have [etc.]