File No. 763.72/1075
No. 476]
This protest was enclosed to me by His Majesty’s Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, in a communication requesting that it be forwarded to
the Government of the United States.
[Enclosure]
The British Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs (Grey) to the
American Ambassador (Page)
His Majesty’s Government consider it their duty to bring before the
notice of the United States Government the practice which is being
pursued by the German naval authorities in laying mines on the high
seas on the trade routes, not only to British but to neutral ports,
and in furtherance of no definite military operation. His Majesty’s
Government have reason to think that fishing vessels, possibly
disguised as neutral, are employed for the purpose, and lay these
mines under the pretense of following the ordinary avocations of
fishing. Mines have been found in several cases as much as 50 miles
from the coast.
This practice has already resulted, since the commencement of the
war, in the destruction of eight neutral and seven British merchant
and fishing vessels, so far as at present ascertained, with the loss
of some sixty lives of neutral and non-combatant persons.
The practice of laying mines indiscriminately and in large numbers on
the high seas, entirely regardless of the dangers to peaceful
shipping, is in flagrant violation of the accepted principles of
international law and contrary to the primary dictates of humanity.
It is also in direct contradiction with the language of Baron Marschall von Bieberstein,
who, as first German delegate at the Peace Conference of 1907, spoke
as follows: “We do not intend, if I may employ an expression used by
the British delegate, ‘to sow mines in profusion on every sea’. . .
We do not hold the opinion that everything which is not expressly
forbidden is permitted.”
The freedom of the seas for peaceful trading is an established and
universally accepted principle; this fact has never been more
clearly recognized than in the words of the report of the third
committee of the Second Peace Conference, which dealt with the
question of submarine contact mines: “Even apart from any written
stipulation it can never fail to be present in the minds of all that
the principle of the liberty of the seas, with the obligations which
it implies on behalf of those who make use of this way of
communication open to the nations, is the indisputable prerogative
of the human race.”
This principle received further recognition in the third article of
the convention relating to the laying of submarine contact
mines:
When anchored automatic contact mines are employed, every
possible precaution must be taken for the security of peaceful
shipping.
The belligerents undertake to do their utmost to render these
mines harmless after a limited time has elapsed, and, should the
mines cease to be under observation, to notify the danger zones
as soon as military exigencies permit, by a notice to mariners,
which must also be communicated to the Governments through the
diplomatic channel.
Not only have the German Government neglected to take every possible
precaution for the safety of neutral shipping, but they have, on the
contrary, deliberately and successfully contrived to sow danger in
its track. The mined zones have not been kept under observation nor
has any notification of their locality ever been made. The
provisions of this article, which the German Government are pledged
to observe, have therefore been violated in three distinct ways.
Article 1, Section 2, of the same convention has equally been
violated by the German Government, for the mines which they have
laid have in numerous instances been found adrift from their
moorings without having become harmless. Yet the German Government
made no reservation respecting this article either when signing or
ratifying the convention.
The degree of respect with which the German Government treat their
written pledges, and the pledges given verbally in their name by
their representatives, is sufficiently apparent from what is stated
above. It is brought into yet higher relief in the light of the
following statement made by Baron
Marschall before the third committee of the last
peace conference, and repeated by him in full, and with added
emphasis, at the eighth plenary meeting of the conference:
A belligerent who lays mines assumes a very heavy responsibility
toward neutrals and peaceful shipping. . . . No one will resort
to such means unless for military reasons of an absolutely
urgent character.
[Page 462]
But
military acts are not governed solely by principles of
international law. There are other factors: conscience, good
sense, and the sentiment of duty imposed by principles of
humanity will be the surest guides for the conduct of sailors,
and will constitute the most effective guarantee against abuses.
The officers of the German Navy, I emphatically affirm, will
always fulfil, in the strictest fashion, the duties which
emanate from the unwritten law of humanity and civilisation.
His Majesty’s Government desire to place on record their strong
protest against the illegitimate means of conducting warfare which
has been resorted to by their adversaries. They feel that its
manifest inhumanity must call down upon its authors the censure and
reprobation of all civilised peoples.
Foreign Office,
September 26, 1914.
