Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I

763.72111 H 58/5

The Secretary of State to President Wilson

Washington, February 27, 1917.

My Dear Mr. President: I enclose you a copy of a memorandum which I have prepared in reply to memoranda which the British Embassy delivered to us in September⁷³ and December⁷⁴ of last year relative to the Hindu intrigues in this country. If this involved a continuation of a controversy I would be disposed to let it lie for the present, but in view of the fact that it is merely an answer to serious charges against officials of this Government, I feel we should not delay making a reply.

I would be pleased if you would give me any suggestions you may have as to substance or language.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Lansing

[Enclosure]

The Department of State to the British Embassy ⁷⁵

Memorandum

The Government of the United States begs to acknowledge the receipt of the memoranda of the British Embassy dated September 25th⁷³ and December 21st⁷⁴ last in regard to alleged intrigues in the United States against British Possessions in the East. As the American authorities are still investigating the matters set out in the memorandum of December 21st, the Government of the United States is not in a position to make a complete answer to the British contentions, but the Government of the United States has given careful consideration to the memorandum of September 25th last, and will reply to the serious charges therein made against the Government of the United States and its officials prior to the information disclosed in the memorandum of December 21st.

In the memorandum of September 25th His Majesty’s Government call attention to “the continued toleration of Indian and German intrigues in the United States, which constitute a grave menace to the British Empire,” and state that “they can not regard the present negligence of the United States authorities toward such intrigues . . . as compatible with the duties of a neutral power.” The memorandum also refers to the statement of the Government of the United States in the China case, that the complaints of His Majesty’s Government in regard to intrigues in Chinese territory were clearly ones to be laid before the Government of China, and in view of this declaration “once more requests the United States to take the necessary action to put a stop to these intrigues against the British Empire now being fostered on United States territory,” and states that they are “meanwhile temporarily refraining from taking their own measures in the Eastern waters to prevent the spread of these hostile and seditious movements.”

In reply, the Government of the United States begs to announce that it adheres to the principle exemplified in the American Ambassador’s note of April 27th last in the China case,⁷⁸ that the proper recourse against intrigues in neutral territory is to complain to the Government of the neutral power within whose territory they are carried on, and trusts that His Majesty’s Government will continue, as the release of the men in the China case indicates their intention to do, to adhere to the same principle, by referring complaints as to intrigues in this country to the Government of the United States instead of endeavoring to prevent them by seizing mails on the high seas and by removing insurrectionists and intriguers out of American vessels and from under the American flag—practices in which the British Government should know the Government of the United States can not acquiesce.

The Government of the United States does not hesitate to repudiate emphatically the charges made by the British Government in the memorandum of September 25th last, of the “continued toleration” in the United States of Indian and German intrigues which are being “fostered on United States territory,” and of the “present negligence” of American authorities toward such intrigues. The characterization of the conduct of the Government of the United States and its officials in language which seems to it to be intemperate in tone and unwarranted by the facts, has been a subject of surprise and concern to the Government of the United States; but it appreciates the circumstances of their utterances and is disposed to discuss the complaints of His Majesty’s Government without further notice of the expressions, at which it might be justified in taking offense.

There have been, it is true, suspicious circumstances attending the acts of certain Germans, Americans of German descent, and East Indians in relation to British India, but have not enemy aliens and intriguers in neutral countries always been subjects of extreme suspicion? The activities in the present case, however, as will be shown, have not only received the closest attention of the American authorities, but where of a criminal nature under American laws, have been frustrated by the prompt institution of repressive measures.

From the diplomatic correspondence on the subject up to December last, it would appear that the activities complained of related to the enterprises of certain propagandists on the Pacific Coast, and the movements of the American vessels Henry S. and Maverick. As these appear to be the main factors in the alleged intrigues, each of them will be discussed in turn.

First. An account of the activities of the propagandists occurs in the documents transmitted to the Department of State with the British Ambassador’s note of February 15, 1916,⁷⁹ relating to the Lahore Conspiracy Case, in which certain of the reputed leaders and participants in the alleged intrigues in America were tried and condemned in India. It appears that long before the present war there existed revolutionary societies among East Indians in France and other countries, aimed to create a revolt in India by violence and murder; that in America the movement began in Canada, whence it spread to the United States; that “the two main centers (of the conspiracy) were Vancouver and San Francisco”; that the movement was begun in 1913 by Hindu and Mohammedan subjects of the British Empire, who undertook the publication of a newspaper in California called the Ghadr (Mutiny), advocating violent revolutionary measures in India, the first issue of which appeared in November of that year, and was distributed widely among the East Indians in the United States and Canada; that the originator of the propaganda and newspaper, one Hardial, continued his propaganda and sedition until he was forced by the American authorities to leave the United States, in March, 1914; that Ram Chandar succeeded to the leadership of the movement and the management of the Ghadr; that from May, 1913, to September, 1914, meetings of East Indians were held on the Pacific Coast of America, at which “sedition was preached, and Indians were exhorted to be ready to go to India when occasion arose”; that, apparently in anticipation of the opening of the war, subscriptions were collected and lists of volunteers opened of those “ready to return at once (August, 1914) to India,” which “many agreed to do”; that many left the United States and Canada to carry out their revolutionary designs, on the steamer Korea August 29th, and on other vessels (some vessels leaving Vancouver, Canada, with East Indians on board, and stopping at San Francisco); that a majority of those on the Korea transshipped to the Japanese steamship Toska Maru at Hongkong, where others joined them, and proceeded to India via Calcutta; that arms and ammunition had been collected and “one of the probable sources of the arms was the United States of America and Canada”; that “a number of these (persons) on arrival in India were interned, but some of them dispersed themselves about the country” and “committed various murders and deeds of violence until they were arrested and tried”; and that some of these seditionists received encouragement, instructions, and money from German subjects and from officials of the German Government.

From the foregoing, which takes no account of the information contained in the British memorandum of December 21st, it appears that, although intriguers may have been present on the Pacific Coast in considerable numbers, they infested Canada as well as the United States, and carried on their activities in both countries; that, although they may have sailed from American ports in order to carry out seditious designs, nevertheless, it does not appear that they formed any military expedition or enterprise within the United States contrary to the laws thereof, or that they left American ports as a military organization, or that they were supplied with arms and ammunition in the United States, or that they received arms and ammunition on the high seas which had been sent from the United States in pursuance of a plan framed within American jurisdiction, or even that arms were permitted to leave the jurisdiction of the United States destined to India for revolutionary purposes. It is clear, therefore, that none of the elements of a military expedition in violation of the neutrality laws of the United States was present in the activities of the alleged intriguers in the United States or in their supposed movement to the Far East.

In an earlier communication, dated March 27, 1916,⁸⁰ the British Ambassador called attention to information which had been received from Canada, that there was great activity among the revolutionary Hindus and Mohammedans on the Pacific Coast, and that arms and ammunition were being sent, with machinery, in cotton-bales and general merchandise, and being re-shipped in the Philippines and from there forwarded to India. This information was referred to the Department of Justice for attention, which, on April 5th, replied⁸¹ that “for a considerable time the alleged activities of Hindus on the Pacific Coast have been the subject of investigation by this Department. No facts as alleged have developed as to shipment of arms and ammunition as stated by the British Ambassador. The matter, however, will be further investigated.” This was communicated to the Ambassador of Great Britain in a note dated April 17, 1916.⁸²

In this relation may be mentioned also the British memorandum of April 10, 1916,⁸² enclosing a letter of H. Dayal, dated Switzerland, January 5, 1915, in which he discloses his intention to publish in San Francisco a newspaper in English, entitled, “The United States of India,” as the “official organ of the Ghadr Party,” with the object of giving “news of all anarchical movements.” This matter was promptly laid before the Department of Justice, which stated, on May 1, 1916,⁸¹ “that the matter would be given consideration, although nothing stated would seem to contain any violation or probable violation of the criminal laws of this country. So far as known, the publication of a newspaper to present anarchical views is not a violation of any federal law.”

Second. It appears from the British statements prior to December 21, 1916, that in the summer of 1915, certain persons, including one Wehde and one Boehm, left the United States for Manila, where the former chartered the schooner Henry S. and loaded her with arms from German vessels lying in the Philippine ports, with a view to transporting them to Shanghai; that the American customs authorities, regarding the transaction as highly suspicious, refused clearance to the vessel unless the arms were removed; that the arms were removed in accordance with this requirement, and the vessel thereafter cleared for Borneo, July 14, 1915, though it appears that the vessel subsequently put in at Paleleh in a disabled condition, where she seems to have been abandoned.

Regarding this case, the British Ambassador, in his note of September 16, 1915,⁸² stated “there can be little doubt that a hostile expedition was being planned and fitted out and was probably frustrated by the vigilance of the local United States authorities.” And to the same case the Ambassador, in his note of February 15, 1916,⁸² refers as follows: “Money, men, and arms were provided by the German consuls at Chicago and San Francisco, and were dispatched to Manila. Here the scheme failed, owing to the United States Customs officials refusing clearance to the Henry S., which had been chartered on behalf of the Party. * * *⁸⁶ I take this opportunity of expressing the thanks of my Government for the energetic measures taken by the authorities in the Philippines in order to prevent any breach of the neutrality laws.”

From this it will be perceived that the intrigues on American territory resulting in the proposed shipment of arms on the Henry S. were promptly frustrated to the satisfaction of the British Government by the vigilance of American authorities, who suspected that the preparations involving the Henry S. constituted the beginning or setting on foot in American territory of a military expedition contrary to the neutrality laws of the United States.

Third. From the communications from the British Embassy of February 15, 1916, and January 6, March 13, May 12, June 14, and June 16, 1915, and from the British Foreign Office of March 29, 1916,⁸⁷ it appears that the steamship Maverick was purchased by certain Germans in California in March, 1915, and sailed from San Pedro, California, April 22d, for Mexico with “five Indians, who posed as Persians”; that she did not transport arms, although it was believed her real mission was to do so; that she cleared for a Mexican port and thence sailed for Socorro Island, a Mexican possession in the Pacific 400 miles west of Manzanillo; that her movements were highly suspicious; and that through press accounts of her supposed expedition, or other causes, her ulterior plans, if she had any, were frustrated and in consequence the “owners changed their plans and used the vessel for purposes other than the conveyance of arms.” It appears further from this correspondence that on March 8th, the American steamer Annie Larsen sailed from San Diego with several carloads of arms and ammunition for one Bowen, at Topolobampo, Mexico; but that, according to press reports, she sailed with her arms to Socorro Island, and turned up at Acapulco, Mexico, without her cargo of arms and ammunition. From the investigations of the United States authorities it appears, however, that, notwithstanding the reported plan of the Maverick to meet the Annie Larsen at Socorro Island and there to transship the latter’s cargo of arms and ammunition and proceed to Java, the Annie Larsen, as a matter of fact, returned to the United States, where she arrived at the port of Aberdeen, Washington, June 29, 1915, with her cargo of arms and ammunition still on board and intact, and that there the American authorities took charge of the vessel and cargo.

It will be realized that at the time these vessels were preparing to leave the Pacific ports of the United States, they were investigated thoroughly by American authorities, who, in the absence of actual evidence tending to show a violation of the United States laws, were impelled to grant them clearances. From the circumstances related above regarding the Maverick and Annie Larsen, it is clear that neither of them violated the neutrality laws of the United States. Even if there were witnesses who might possibly prove facts constituting in this case a military expedition, these witnesses, the Department of State is advised, like most of those connected with intrigues in this country, are now either in the hands of British authorities as prisoners, or else have suffered capital punishment.

From the foregoing account it seems too obvious to require argument, that in none of the three cases of alleged intrigues were the neutrality laws of the United States contravened, nor were the United States authorities negligent in any respect. In these respects the Attorney-General advises the Department of State in a letter of December 20, 1916,⁸⁸ as follows:

“The requirements of proof to establish the crime of beginning or setting on foot, or providing or preparing the means for a military enterprise or expedition (Sec. 13, Criminal Code), and the crime of conspiracy to commit the said offense (Sec. 37, Criminal Code), have been clearly established by decisions of the Supreme Court and of the inferior Federal courts.

“Although active efforts have been made by this Department for many months to obtain evidence relative to German and Indian intrigues in this country which would warrant an indictment, no sufficient evidence has as yet been obtained; nor has any evidence which would warrant such an indictment ever been furnished by any officials of the British Embassy, or otherwise.⁸⁹ . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There has been no negligence on the part of this Department in prosecuting violations of the criminal laws of the United States.

“Prevention of ‘intrigues,’ which do not constitute a violation of the laws of this country, I do not conceive to be incumbent upon the United States as a neutral power.”

On the point of negligence, it may be further noted that some of the activities described originated in part and were carried on in a measure from Canadian territory, where the British authorities, endowed even with the extraordinary powers incident to a state of war had met with no more success in suppressing them than it is charged had the American authorities in suppressing the activities alleged to have taken place in American territory.

In this relation attention may also be directed to the precedent analogous to the present cases established by the British Government in the Orsini case in 1858. In this case a plot was hatched on British soil, bombs were manufactured, and would-be assassins, under the protection of British passports, took passage from Great Britain with these deadly weapons for the purpose of making an attempt on the life of the French Emperor, Napoleon III. So much excitement was aroused in both France and Great Britain at the monstrous act that the British Government introduced a bill amending the law of conspiracy so as to make it a felony to conspire to commit murder either within or without the United Kingdom. It is noteworthy, however, that this bill failed of passage by the British Parliament.

Having disposed of the earlier phases of the so-called intrigues on United States soil, the memorandum of September 25, 1916, may be considered specifically. That memorandum presents no evidence whatever in itself or in its enclosures of “the continuance of German intrigues against British Possessions in the East,” other than the assertion of the Counselor of the Embassy, and from the correspondence just reviewed there appears nothing whatever to bear out the assertion. Nor is the Government of the United States, which has used the information presented by the British Embassy and made thorough and painstaking investigations on its own account of the alleged intrigues, aware from sources of information other than the British Embassy, that these intrigues are being “continued,” “tolerated,” or “fostered” on American territory. The Government of the United States, therefore, must repel the unfounded charge of negligence on the part of American authorities which the British Government advance in the memorandum of September 25th, without the production of proofs. It is unnecessary to add that any facts that may be presented will be thoroughly investigated by the United States authorities, who will take such action under the laws of the United States as the results of the investigation seem to warrant.

This memorandum should not be closed without reference to the statement made in note of Lord Grey of October 10, 1916,⁹⁰ on the British blacklist, that:

“In some cases they (German business establishments) have been used as bases of supply for German cruisers and in other cases as organizers and paymasters of miscreants employed to destroy by foul means factories engaged in making, or ships engaged in carrying, supplies required by the Allies. Such operations have been carried out in the territory even of the United States itself, and I am bound to observe, what I do not think will be denied, that no adequate action yet has been taken by the government of the United States to suppress breaches of neutrality of this particular criminal kind, which I know they are the first to discountenance and deplore.”

At the outset, the Government of the United States may state what the preceding part of this memorandum bears out, that this statement contains a direct charge which, so far as it applies to the United States, is unfounded so far as the Government of the United States was cognizant of the facts, or so far as facts have been presented to it by the British Government.

In regard to this statement, the Department of Justice, which is charged with the duty to prosecute violations of the laws of the United States, and to which are referred all reports of intrigues, activities, and movements of the agents of the belligerent powers, advised the Department of State on November 15, 1916,⁹¹ as follows:

“In no instance, to the knowledge of this Department, has there been in this country a base of supplies for German cruisers, as that term is understood in international law; and wherever there has been any violation of the domestic law of this country by the use of false manifests, etc., and sufficient evidence thereof to warrant indictment, it has been prosecuted criminally by this Department.

“The destruction ‘by foul means of factories engaged in making or ships engaged in carrying supplies required by the Allies’ is not in any manner a breach of neutrality ‘of this particular criminal kind,’ or of any kind; and there is no obligation resting upon the United States under international law to prevent or punish such destruction. Such destruction, if it has occurred, is a matter purely of domestic concern; . . .⁹²

“. . .⁹² though persistent and prompt investigation has been made of cases of alleged attempts to destroy factories engaged in making supplies, this Department has been unable to discover any evidence of a violation of Federal criminal law with respect thereto, except in the two cases of indictment for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law, which have been, and are now, being prosecuted. With regard to attempts to destroy ships carrying supplies, this Department has promptly investigated every instance brought to its attention and has secured indictments for violation of Federal criminal laws wherever the evidence warranted.”

In this relation it is proper to add that, as the Department of State is advised, the greatest difficulty which the Department of Justice has experienced in undertaking prosecutions under the criminal laws in certain cases during this war has been the inability to obtain from the British Government consent for the return of supposed culprits and witnesses who have been seized and held as prisoners of war by British authorities.

Washington , February 23, 1917.

73. Ante, p. 223.
74. Not printed.
75. Filed separately under file No. 763.72111 H 58/11a.
73. Ante, p. 223.
74. Not printed.
78. Not printed; for contents see Foreign Relations, 1916, supp., p. 637.
79. Not printed.
80. Not printed.
81. Letter not printed.
82. Not printed.
82. Not printed.
81. Letter not printed.
82. Not printed.
82. Not printed.
86. Asterisks appear in the original memorandum.
87. None printed.
88. Not printed.
89. The following omission indicated in the original memorandum.
90. Printed in full in Foreign Relations, 1916, supp., p. 462.
91. Letter not printed.
92. Omission indicated in the original memorandum.
92. Omission indicated in the original memorandum.