763.72/3352½
The Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury (McAdoo)
My Dear Mr. Secretary: Referring to your letter of the 12th11 concerning the arming of merchant vessels in which a friend, whom you quote, asserts that arming is a belligerent right and therefore [Page 608] not proper for a neutral, I wish to point out that there are and have been two distinct reasons for merchant vessels carrying guns.
In the first place a merchant vessel on the high seas is without the protection of its government from lawless acts, it is, therefore, entitled to protect itself from pirates or other marauders, and may of course arm for that purpose. I do not see that it makes any difference whether a state of war or a state of peace exists so far as this right of defense is concerned.
In the second place a merchant vessel of belligerent nationality has a right to resist attack because enemy private property on the high seas may be by the laws of war seized and confiscated. To arm and resist are therefore legitimate as long as private property is not exempt from capture.
The arming of American merchant vessels falls under the first right. The United States is at peace. American vessels cannot arm to resist the exercise of a recognized belligerent right, but they can arm to resist illegal acts by a belligerent ship or any other ship. It is merely carrying out the general principle of self-defense due to the unprotected condition of a merchant vessel on the high seas.
Faithfully yours,
- Not printed.↩