811.032/14
The Secretary of State to
President Wilson
Washington,
December 1, 1917
.
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.
