File No. 763.72112/12930b
The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Grey) to the British Ambassador at Washington (Spring Rice)
London , October 17, 1914 .
[Handed to the Acting Secretary of State
by the British Ambassador, October 20.]
[Telegram—Copy ]
A simple acceptance of the Declaration of London would in effect bind us to carry out every detail of an instrument which we have never ratified and to which objection has been taken in Parliament.
Experience of war has shown that free list of Declaration of London contains some articles that are now used in Germany exclusively or mainly for purposes of war.
We also want to reserve right to apply doctrine of continuous voyage where we can get no satisfactory agreement with a neutral country that will prevent it becoming base of supplies for enemy government or army.
We cannot accept all definitions in Monsieur Renault’s report. I believe this has not been accepted in United States.
I see difficulty of United States Government binding itself beforehand to accept text of our order in council; on the other hand we do not wish to issue an order that will lead to a protest from United States Government.
Order does in effect accept Declaration of London departing substantially only from specific lists of contraband and non-contraband and reserving right under certain conditions to apply doctrine of continuous voyage, which I believe up to and even during discussion on Declaration of London every authority in United States upheld.
I think simplest course would be for us to issue new proclamation and for United States Government not to enter any protest on understanding [Page 255] that it will not in practice be used to prevent bona fide trade with neutral countries. United States Government would not then be bound by a partisan acceptance of our proclamation, and would reserve right to deal with application of it on merits of particular cases; but we should not be confronted with an objection in principle that could only be met by withdrawal of proclamation.
I am informed that paragraph 3 of proposed proclamation could not be made a matter of interpretation by courts as suggested by State Department.