File No. 841.731/943

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Page) to the Secretary of State

No. 2087]

Sir: With reference to my despatch No. 1711 of June 30, 1915, enclosing a copy of a circular note from the Foreign Office dated June 26, 1915, in regard to the notification to senders of telegrams detained by the British censorship authorities, I have the honor to enclose herewith a copy of a further circular note I have received from the Foreign Office, pointing out that it is not the intention of the British Government that the senders of telegrams should be notified in every case when their messages are stopped.

I have [etc.]

Walter Hines Page
[Enclosure—Circular]

The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Grey) to the American Ambassador (Page)

No. 117496/15]

Your Excellency: My attention has been drawn to the fact that some misconception has arisen as to the precise meaning of the first paragraph of my [Page 725] circular note of June 26 last (No. 80052/15) in regard to the notification to senders of telegrams detained by the British censorship authorities.

I have the honour to explain that it is not the intention of His Majesty’s Government that the senders of telegrams should be notified in every case when their messages are stopped.

When telegrams are stopped on technical grounds (e, g., owing to the omission of the sender’s name, insufficiency of address of sender, or addressee, etc.) but are otherwise unobjectionable from the point of view of the censorship, the senders will be notified of the detention of their telegrams, in order to give them an opportunity of setting the matter right. In the case of other telegrams, when the sender learns from the addressee that a telegram has not reached its destination, and applies for reimbursement under the conditions laid down in my above-mentioned circular, the fact that reimbursement is made will be equivalent to a notification that the telegram in question has been stopped by the censors.

I have [etc.]

For
Sir Edward Grey:
Maurice De Bunsen