The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America to the Secretary of State

Sir: Many commercial organizations of the West, and some of the East, which are affiliated with this chamber have much concern over the treatment which American trade in copper is receiving, especially from Great Britain and France.

It is unnecessary, we know, to call your attention to the large part of the world’s supply of copper which the United States produces (in 1912, 1,200,000,000 pounds out of a total supply of 2,200,000,000 pounds), or to the importance of the 41 American plants which have been engaged in smelting and refining copper, or to the great number and extent of industrial purposes, unconnected with belligerent activities, for which copper is customarily used.

The action of Great Britain and France in making copper absolute contraband necessarily, because of the extent of innocent uses of copper, affects most directly the non-combatant population of countries with which England and France are at war, and thus has an effect upon our trade which, according to our understanding, can in international law be legitimately brought about only through an effective blockade. So far as we are aware, neither England nor France has formally declared a blockade of any of the coasts or ports of countries with which a state of war exists.

When it was proposed to keep China from importing materials which could be used for the manufacture of arms and ammunition, the United States objected that in view of the nature of materials such a prohibition would seem to have for its real purpose the prevention of industrial enterprises. At the time of the Russian-Japanese [Page 282] war England protested to Russia, which had declared raw cotton unconditionally contraband, that the bulk of cotton exported from India to Japan was intended for peaceful purposes and treatment of harmless cargoes of cotton as unconditionally contraband subjected a branch of innocent commerce to a most unwarrantable interference.

The Declaration of London, which was intended to remove uncertainties and perplexities of neutral commerce in regard to contraband, was, with certain modifications, put in force in England “during the present hostilities” by an order in council of August 20, 1914. The Declaration of London, in Article 23, states that “articles used exclusively for war may be added to the list of absolute contraband by a declaration.” As copper cannot by any means be said to be used exclusively for war, or predominately for war even in circumstances of emergency, it would seem that the present action of England runs counter to the assurances which in effect were given by the order in council of August 14.

The recent announcement of England, connected with the question of “continuous voyage,” concerning shipments of copper to Italy, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, has come to our attention, but, of course, does not dispose of the question we mean to discuss in this letter.

Very respectfully yours,

Elliot H. Goodwin

Secretary