811.032/14

The Secretary of State to President Wilson

My Dear Mr. President: Replying to your request of November 28, for a statement as to any legislation which should be considered by Congress at this session, I enclose memoranda on this subject which are self-explanatory.

In addition to these memoranda I might suggest that, in my opinion, it would be wise if Congress would pass a resolution suspending during the term of the war the so-called Seaman’s Act.58a I understand that Secretary Redfield is strongly in favor of this. Many protests from foreign countries, particularly the Allied countries, have come to my knowledge complaining that as a result of this Act it is impossible to hold seamen on merchant vessels as they are free to desert whenever they please, following their own inclinations whether voluntarily or induced by German intrigue.

In this connection may I also suggest that it would be of great value to this Department if a law could be passed making it perjury for false affidavits to be presented to this Department or any Department of the Government by persons seeking action in support of their interests abroad. I understand that there is a provision in the Civil Service law which protects the Commission from misstatements. Such a law for the Department of State would go far in preventing it from being imposed upon by unscrupulous persons. Now, as heretofore, the Department has to rely upon statements in affidavits presented [Page 65] to it as the basis for communications with foreign governments. It is very important, particularly at the present time, that there should be some law requiring persons to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in the sworn statements which they present to the Department in support of their claims.

Faithfully yours,

[File copy not signed]

P. S. If you approve the termination of the treaties with Norway and Sweden, I think it would be well to notify their governments in advance of any action on our part. R. L.

[Enclosure 1]

Memorandum Suggesting an Amendment to the Draft Act of May 18, 1917

The Draft Act of May 18, 1917,58b provides for the conscription of aliens (except enemy aliens) who have taken out their first papers. Neutral countries have protested against such conscription of their subjects, those having treaties of exemption basing their protests on treaty provisions, and those having no treaties basing their protests on international law and custom. As you know, the War Department, with your approval, has acceded to their views, and accordingly this Department has advised the neutral countries that while there is no way under the Draft Act to exempt their subjects, the President, in his capacity as Commander-in-chief, would discharge them immediately after they had been incorporated in the army, upon satisfactory proof of their nationality. To the Spanish Ambassador, who has been particularly insistent upon the exemption of his fellow-countrymen, and also of the subjects of Turkey, whose interests are in his charge, the Department has said that it would suggest the amendment of the present Draft Act so as to avoid the present circuitous procedure.

In view of the fact that the action of the Government in discharging neutral declarants from the army is virtually a refusal to execute the act of Congress in this respect, it would seem to me that the situation should be cleared up by an amendment to the Draft Act excluding from its operation declarants of neutral nationality.

The Governments who are co-operating with us in the war have not (except Cuba) protested against the incorporation of their declarants in the American Army.

[Page 66]
[Enclosure 2]

Memorandum Suggesting the Abrogation of the Treaty of 1827 With Norway and Sweden by Resolution of the Senate

Article XVII of the treaty with Sweden and Norway of 182758c revives Article XVII of the treaty of 178358d (both treaty of 1827 and revived articles of treaty of 1783 are regarded as in force between the United States and Sweden and Norway separately) which reads as follows:

“One of the contracting parties being at war and the other remaining neuter, if it should happen that a merchant-ship of the neutral power be taken by the enemy of the other party, and be afterwards retaken by a ship of war or privateer of the Power at war, also ships and merchandizes of what nature soever they may be, when recovered from a pirate or sea rover, shall be brought into a port of one of the two Powers, and shall be committed to the custody of the officers of the said port, that they may be restored entire to the true proprietor as soon as he shall have produced full proof of the property. Merchants, masters, and owners of ships, seamen, people of all sorts, ships and vessels, and in general all merchandizes and effects of one of the allies or their subjects, shall not be subject to any embargo, nor detained in any of the countries, territories, islands, cities, towns, ports, rivers, or domains whatever, of the other ally, on account of any military expedition, or any public or private purpose whatever, by seizure, by force, or by any such manner; much less shall it be lawful for the subjects of one of the parties to seize or take anything by force from the subjects of the other party, without the consent of the owner. This, however, is not to be understood to comprehend seizures, detentions, and arrests, made by order and by the authority of justice, and according to the ordinary course for debts or faults of the subject, for which process shall be had in the way of right according to the forms of justice.”

The last two sentences of this article (that is, the portions between “merchants, masters, and owners . . . forms of justice”) are causing the difficulties in the operation of the plans of the Shipping Board and the War Trade Board.

A large number of Norwegian ships are being built in American shipyards, and the Shipping Board is desirous of taking over these ships for the purpose of speeding up their construction and for the purpose of requisitioning them when completed for the use of the United States; but the Board hesitates to do so in the face of the [Page 67] treaty provision quoted and of the protest of the Norwegian Government thereunder. A plan of having the title to these ships vested in an American corporation and having them chartered to the Shipping Board during the war is being worked out so as to avoid a possible violation of the treaty.

The War Trade Board is desirous of controlling the movements of Swedish and Norwegian ships coming to American ports by the refusal of licenses until the owners or masters sign the “bunker agreement” by which in general they undertake not to assist the enemy, but to transport cargoes for the Allies. In some cases the ships come here with full bunkers for the purpose of unloading part of their cargoes, without taking on any supplies or bunkers. To refuse a license to at least this class of ships, and so to detain them until they sign the bunker agreement, would seem to be a violation of the treaty, and would leave a large number of ships free from the control desired by the War Trade Board. Relying on this treaty, the Swedish Government has protested against such action on the part of the War Trade Board.

The Food Administration has seized certain supplies held in this country by Swedish and Norwegian owners, and such seizures might be regarded by Sweden and Norway as violating this treaty, although they have not yet, so far as I am advised, raised the treaty article in this connection.

The so-called Seamen’s Act has abrogated articles in these treaties relating to the apprehension of deserting seamen, and has modified other articles relating to the right of consular officers to decide differences between the captains and crews of merchant vessels. Under this Act notice was served on Norway that this Government desired to suspend the articles affected but retain the remaining articles of the treaty.58e Norway has refused to accede to this request, and there is nothing left to do but to terminate the treaty.

In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that it might be well to terminate these treaties by one year’s notice, in accordance with their terms, or preferably, to abrogate the treaties by a resolution of the Senate. I enclose the subjects of the articles of these two treaties, which show the scope of the matters covered by them.58f While it is convenient to have agreements with these countries on these subjects, yet the objects and terminology of these articles drafted 90 to 135 years ago are largely unsuited to present conditions.

  1. 38 Stat. 1164.
  2. 40 Stat. 76.
  3. Miller, Treaties. vol. 3, p. 283.
  4. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 123.
  5. See Foreign Relations, 1915, p. 6.
  6. Not printed.