File No. 763.72111/2719
The Netherland Minister (
Van Rappard
) to the Third Assistant Secretary of State
(
Phillips
)
New York
,
July 28, 1915.
[Received July 29.]
My Dear Mr. Phillips: My Government asks me
repeatedly for information about the status of armed merchant vessels
and the attitude of the United States toward them.
I got some time ago from the Secretary of State, the regulation of
September 1914 regulating this matter,3 but I should like so much to know if indeed
the British and American Governments have made arrangement to the effect
that British merchantmen should not be armed by [when] entering or
leaving American harbors, and in the affirmative the reason why that
arrangement has been made as in principle the United States according to
above named regulation of September have no objections under special
conditions to defensive armaments on merchant ships.
In to-day’s Times I find enclosed article on this
subject. If you could tell me that the content of that article is exact,
where it describes the real facts of the situation governing the status
of armed merchant vessels and the attitude of the United States toward
them, I should have all the information. I need, but I hesitate to
accept this newspaper version, how exact it may seem, without your
kindly and quite unofficially endorsing it. Can you do that?
Thanks so much for all the trouble I give you. Believe me [etc.]
[Page 847]
[Enclosure]
Extract from the “New York Times,” July 28,
1915
Washington, July 27. Captain
Perseus, the naval expert of the Berliner Tageblatt, sets up a straw man when
he asserts, as quoted in a daily news dispatch from Rotterdam, that
all British merchant ships are armed, and that it is with the
“connivance of the United States.” The Washington Government is not
worried over the comments of Captain Perseus or
his allegation that “thus Washington pronounces its blessing on
Churchill’s armed merchant vessels.”
The real facts of the situation governing the status of armed
merchant vessels and the attitude of the United States toward them
are not in accord with the statements made by the German naval
expert. It is true that the American Government did issue a
memorandum, not a regulation, last September, covering the status of
armed merchant vessels in which it was stated that a merchant vessel
of belligerent nationality might carry armament and ammunition, but
only for purposes of defense, and indicating that no gun of greater
caliber than six inches could be carried by such a vessel. Captain
Perseus, however, fails to give the correct
date of the circular, does not correctly state its provisions, and
overlooks entirely the fact that in only two instances have
belligerent merchant ships entered American ports carrying guns, and
that, while the United States Government takes the stand that
belligerent merchant vessels may carry guns solely for purposes of
defense, the whole influence of this Government has been exerted
against the arming of merchant ships entering or leaving American
ports.
The fact of the matter is that the United States Government as long
ago as last September expressed the hope informally that belligerent
merchant ships should not enter or leave American ports with any
mounted guns, and the State Department was assured in the same month
by the British Ambassador in Washington that his Government had
decided upon the disarmament of British merchant craft plying
between British ports and the United States.
The problem of determining whether belligerent merchant steamers
should be permitted to be armed when entering or leaving American
ports was raised when the White Star Liner Adriatic arrived at New York on August 29 last, carrying
four guns. The collector of customs at New York at that time
telegraphed to the Treasury Department that the captain of the Adriatic reported that the guns were carried
only for defense. The British Government took the position that the
Adriatic carried guns only for
protection, and that so long as the vessel was engaged in commercial
pursuits direct between two ports, and was not cruising the ocean
for offensive purposes, it had a right to carry arms for protective
purposes.
On September 1 Dr. Arthur Mudra, German Consul
at Philadelphia, called the attention of the collector at
Philadelphia to the fact that the steamer Merion, flying a British flag, arrived at that port with
four 6-inch guns mounted on her decks. Doctor’ Mudra made no
protest. The collector referred the question to Washington. The
captain said the guns were used only for protection. The result of
the reference to the Merion’s case to
Washington was the sailing of the Merion
without her armament mounted. The guns were dismounted and stored in
the Merion’s hold. The British Consul General
at Philadelphia explained that the dismounting of the Merion’s guns was done without prejudice to
the general principle of neutrality.
It was stated by a high official to-night that these were the only
two incidents of merchant vessels entering or leaving American ports
with guns mounted.1
