File No. 195.2/252
The French Ambassador (Jusserand) to the Secretary of State
Washington, September 3, 1914.
[Received September 4.]
[Translation]
Mr. Secretary of State: Referring to the Embassy’s telegram of August 4 last1 and to the conversation I had with your excellency on the 25th of the same month, I have by order of my Government the honor to repeat herein below its views on the question of the proposed purchase by the United States Government of the German vessels which in consequence of the war declared on the French Republic by the German Empire are now tied up in the ports of the United States.
In my Government’s opinion such a transaction which, unless I am mistaken, is without a precedent, could not in any aspect be regarded as legitimate on the part of a great neutral country which no outside pressure could intimidate and no temptation influence.
The views of the great maritime nations on this point have been recorded in the Declaration of London of February 26, 1909, “Declaration concerning the laws of naval warfare,” whose Article 56 reads as follows:
The transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag effected after the outbreak of hostilities, is void unless it is proved that such transfer was not made in order to evade the consequences to which an enemy vessel, as such, is exposed.
There, however, is an absolute presumption that a transfer is void: (1) If the transfer has been made during a voyage, etc.
[Page 491]It seems clear, in the first place, that the Germans concerned want to make such a sale for the very purpose of evading the consequences to which enemy vessels as such are exposed. No one ever heard of their being ready to make it in time of peace, or even of their ever having thought of it. The state of war which is keeping these vessels idle and turning them into a source of unproductive expenses in neutral ports is the cause of their desire to dispose of them, with their Government’s approval, without which a subsidized line could not carry out such a transaction. In the second place, the transaction would occur precisely during a voyage which was interrupted by the war.
The London convention has been signed by the United States, France, England, Germany, and Austria-Hungary. While, as a matter of fact, the formality of exchanging ratifications has not yet been complied with, the Senate of the United States approved the terms of the convention on April 24, 1912, and the Upper House thereby manifested its desire that the rules set forth in the instrument be observed by the American Republic. Furthermore, the report of the American delegates (Ex. A, 61st Cong., 1st sess., pp. 74 and 75) shows that these clauses were adopted in accordance with the views of the representatives of the United States, who on this head made only the very legitimate reservation that: “it would, however, be an undue interference with commerce if all sales, or sales made a long time before the war, were liable to be regarded as invalid.”
As for France, she manifested in the same year when the Senate of the United States passed the aforesaid resolution her intention to observe for her part the rules thus laid down, and the one which we are considering forms paragraphs 112 and 113 of the Instructions pour l’application du droit international en cas de guerre published in 1912 by the French Minister of Marine. I had by order of my Government the honor to mail your excellency a copy of that official document on July 18 of last year.
The French Government is confident that the American Government will not act otherwise, proof of its respect for assumed engagements and its pledged word having been repeatedly given in memorable circumstances.
It is proper to add that, even if the Declaration of London were left entirely out of the question, the proposed transaction would still be open to the most serious objections as constituting aid extended to a belligerent to mitigate in his behalf the consequences of a condition produced by war.
In the course of the hostilities that have been declared, we are far from enjoying every advantage. There is one, however, that unquestionably belongs to England and France at the present time; namely, the command of the sea. Thanks to that mastery, a number of German vessels were compelled to take refuge in neutral ports, particularly in the United States. There they practically count for nothing. They can be of no service to their country either as carriers or as participants in military operations through conversion into cruisers. They are even worse than useless to their country; they are a source of expense for their upkeep and the pay of their crews.
[Page 492]The command of the sea, then, has enabled the English and ourselves to inflict this damage upon our enemy, a very slight damage when compared to the bloody ravages going on in the French and Belgian territory he occupies, but nevertheless an appreciable damage.
Now this is the very disadvantage which an unprecedented intervention of the American Government would turn into an advantage. That source of expense would be changed to a source of profit; ships that can no longer be of service to their country, that are, so to speak, non-existent, would be transformed into a large sum of money, 25 or 30 million dollars as reported, that is to say, transformed into something that is particularly valuable and sought after just now and for the benefit of persons in closest relations with the Imperial Government and of vessels subsidized by that same Government.
The President of the United States in a memorable proclamation urged upon his fellow countrymen the most absolute neutrality in deed, in speech, even in thought. He cannot possibly approve a transaction so contrary to the views legitimately expressed by himself and allow his country thus to take sides against us in the solemn hour when the fate of France and also the fate of the ideas that France personifies are at stake. Without invoking the attitude of France in the most trying hours of American history, it may be permissible to cherish the wish that the Republic of the United States will at least not abet to our detriment those who have declared and are wagering ruthless war upon us, but that she will purely and simply observe rules that are in accordance with logic, that were adopted by her delegates to the London conference, and that have since received the approval of the Senate.
Accept, [etc.]