File No. 763.72112/157
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Page)
Washington, October 16, 1914, 3 p.m.
[Telegram]
324. Your telegram No. 806 of October 9.1 You may say to Sir Edward Grey that it is the earnest desire of this Government to reach an agreement as to the Declaration of London which will be [Page 251] mutually satisfactory, and that it is a matter of sincere gratification that the British Government have shown equal anxiety to meet the wishes of this Government in revising the order in council which seemed objectionable to this Government.
Nevertheless the United States is bound to recognize the rights of neutrals and to avoid accepting rules which it considers will place undue restrictions upon their exercise, not only because by accepting them undesirable precedents may be created for the future but also because acceptance by this Government might be construed by the enemies of Great Britain to be contrary to that strict neutrality which it is the earnest wish of the President to preserve throughout the present war.
It is, therefore, in no unfriendly spirit but in the hope and confident expectation that some more acceptable way may be found to accomplish the ends sought by the British Government that this Government offers the following objections to the order in council which has been proposed as a substitute for the order in council of August 20.
- 1.
- The proposed order in council does not accept the Declaration of London without change, hence this Government is convinced that such modified acceptance would not be satisfactory to other belligerents, who have accepted the Declaration of London upon the condition that it is accepted by all the belligerent powers. As to the provisions of the proposed order in council this Government as a neutral and in the interest of neutral commerce is constrained to make the following objections.
- 2.
- The proposed order in council leaves unrepealed Articles 2, 3, 4 and 6 of the order in council of August 20. Of these, Articles 3 and 6 are especially objectionable to this Government for reasons which have already been stated.
- 3.
- The proposed order in council, while it purports to repeal Article 1 of the order in council of. August 20, in fact reenacts that article and extends the lists of contraband set forth by many additions. These additions could have been made under Articles 23 and 25 of the declaration if it had been adopted without change, hence it was needless to modify the declaration itself. This same objection was made to Article 1 of the order in council of August 20, and applies equally to its reenactment in an amended form.
- 4.
- The substitution of Subarticle B of Article 2 of Section 3 of the proposed order in council for Article 5 of the order in council of August 20 seems to be more restrictive of neutral rights than the repealed Article 5. Article 5 was intended to preserve the doctrine of “continuous voyage” in relation to conditional contraband. Although Subarticle B purports to do away with this doctrine, it in fact appears to go even further than Article 5 in applying it. If “continuous voyage” is eliminated, no ship carrying articles listed as conditional contraband is liable to capture when its cargo is to be discharged in a neutral port even if the ultimate destination of the cargo is the enemy government. By Article 5 of the order in council of August 20 a ship destined to a neutral port is liable to seizure if the consignee of conditional contraband on board is not only an enemy government or its agent but even a person under its control. By Subarticle B in the proposed order in council a ship [Page 252] and cargo are liable to capture if the goods carried are in the list of conditional contraband, even though they are to be discharged at a neutral port provided, “no consignee in that country of the goods alleged to be conditional contraband is disclosed in the ship’s papers.” In fact the terms of the subarticle permit capture or a ship bound for the port of one neutral country if the cargo is consigned to a person resident in another country not at war.
- 5.
- Section 4 of the proposed order in council introduces a new doctrine into naval warfare and imposes upon neutral commerce a restriction which appears to be without precedent. An analysis of the provisions of this section shows that, in the discretion of one of His Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, a neutral country may be clothed with enemy character and that the legitimate trade of another neutral with such country may be subjected to the rules which are applied to contraband trade with enemy territory. In brief, this section appears to declare that articles, listed as conditional contraband, shipped in a neutral vessel to a neutral country make the vessel and its cargo liable to seizure if certain members of the British Government are satisfied that supplies on munitions of war are entering enemy territory from the neutral country to which the vessel is bound, even though the consignee is within the neutral country. The effect of this provision would seem to be that a belligerent would gain all the rights over neutral commerce with enemy territory without declaring war against the neutral country which is claimed to be a base of supply for the military forces of an enemy. It seems inconsistent to declare a nation to be neutral and treat it as an enemy; and, if it does so, other neutral nations can hardly be expected to permit their commerce to be subject to rules which only apply to commerce with a belligerent.
You may also say to Sir Edward Grey that the President is convinced that if the same forbearance and cordiality continue which each Government has shown up to this time in the discussion of this question, a solution will speedily be reached which will be acceptable to both.