File No. 763.72112/200
The Ambassador in Great Britain ( Page) to the Secretary of State
London, October 21, 1914, 10 p.m.
[Received 11:55 p.m.]
[Telegram]
Your 300, October 13,1 and 324, October 16.2 In our discussion with Grey about the adoption of the Declaration of London hessigned [Page 257] as reasons why it could not be adopted without modification, that (1) Parliament had rejected it as unsatisfactory; (2) Article 28 Assured [sic] rubber, metallic ores, and hides from treatment as contraband, whereas in present circumstances these materials were being imported to Germany solely for military purposes; (3) Holland is being used as a base for military supplies for Germany under the Rhine treaty of 1869, which in effect makes Rotterdam practically a German port for certain purposes, thus presenting a situation not anticipated or covered by the provision of the declaration.
My impression is that Grey thinks that inasmuch as the declaration admittedly is a compromise arrangement which has never been ratified by any of the parties and in its present application is highly advantageous to Germany, we are rather inconsiderate ininsisting that Great Britain should be bound by it. It seems likely that he will insist that in these circumstances the principles of international law governing neutral trade must be ascertained independently of the declaration, and that in view of the existing differences between nations in regard to these rules, Great Britain is within its rights in adopting now the rules which it proposes to adhere to, independently of the declaration, on the understanding that if we disagree about these rules in their application to individual cases our right to contest their legality is fully reserved to us and any question of resulting damages may be settled by arbitration if that should ultimately be necessary.
He expressed the hope that differences as to international law questions should not be made the basis of protest by the United States, but that we should be content with a distinct understanding that whatever rights we may have are fully reserved.
Is it not probable that most of the shippers in the United States of supplies available for war purposes have been paid in advance on account of the risk of seizure, and consequently that the seized cargoes really belong either to the German Government if the payments have been made on its account, or to foreign dealers whose interest the United States is not required to protect?
American Ambassador