File No. 763.72111/1930
[Enclosure—Memorandum—Translation]
J. Nr. A 2341]
Washington,
April 4, 1915.
The various British orders in council have one-sidedly modified
the generally recognized principles of international law in a
way which arbitrarily stops the commerce of neutral nations with
Germany. Even before the last British order in council, the
shipment of conditional contraband, especially food supplies, to
Germany was practically impossible. Prior to the protest sent by
the American to the British Government on December 28 last, such
a shipment did not actually take place in a single case. Even
after this protest the Imperial Embassy knows of only a single
case in which an American shipper has ventured to make such a
shipment for the purpose of legitimate sale to Germany. Both
ship and cargo were immediately seized by the English and are
being held in an English port under the pretext of an order of
the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) regarding the grain
trade, although this resolution of the Federal Council relates
exclusively to grain and flour and not to other foodstuffs,
besides making an express exception with respect to imported
foodstuffs, and although the German Government gave the American
Government an assurance, and proposed a special organization
whereby the exclusive consumption by the civilian population is
absolutely guaranteed.
Under the circumstances the seizure of the American ship was
inadmissible according to recognized principles of international
law. Nevertheless the United States Government has not to date
secured the release of the ship and cargo, and has not, after a
duration of the war of eight months, succeeded in protecting its
lawful trade with Germany.
Such a long delay, especially in matters of food supply, is
equivalent to an entire denial.
The Imperial Embassy must therefore assume that the United States
Government acquiesces in the violations of international law by
Great Britain.
Then there is also the attitude of the United States in the
question of the exportation of arms. The Imperial Government
feels sure that the United States Government will agree that in
questions of neutrality it is necessary to take into
consideration not only the formal aspect of the case, but also
the spirit in which the neutrality is carried out.
The situation in the present war differs from that of any
previous war. Therefore any reference to arms furnished by
Germany in former wars is not justified, for then it was not a
question whether war material should be
supplied to the belligerents, but who
should supply it in competition with other nations. In the
present war all nations having a war material industry worth
mentioning are either involved in the war themselves or are
engaged in perfecting their own armaments, and have therefore
laid an embargo against the exportation of war material. The
United States is accordingly the only neutral country in a
position to furnish war materials. The conception of neutrality
is thereby given a new purport, independently of the formal
question of hitherto existing law. In contradiction thereto, the
United States is building up a powerful a rills industry in the
broadest sense, the existing plants not only being worked but
enlarged by all available means, and new ones built. The
international conventions for the protection of the rights of
neutral nations doubtless sprang from the necessity of
protecting the existing industries of neutral nations as far as
possible from injury in their business. But it can in no event
be in accordance with the spirit of true neutrality if, under
the protection of such international stipulations, an entirely
new industry is created in a neutral state, such as is the
development of the arms industry in the
[Page 158]
United States, the business whereof, under
the present conditions, can benefit only the belligerent
powers.
This industry is actually delivering goods only to the enemies of
Germany. The theoretical willingness to supply Germany also, if
shipments thither were possible, does not alter the case. If it
is the will of the American people that there shall be a true
neutrality, the United States will find means of preventing this
one-sided supply of arms or at least of utilizing it to protect
legitimate trade with Germany, especially that in foodstuffs.
This view of neutrality should all the more appeal to the United
States Government because the latter enacted a similar policy
toward Mexico. On February 4, 1914, President Wilson, according to a statement of a
Representative in Congress in the Committee for Foreign Affairs
of December 30, 1914, upon the lifting of the embargo on arms to
Mexico, declared that “we should stand for genuine neutrality,
considering the surrounding facts of the case...” He then held
that “in that case, because Carranza had no ports, while Huerta
had them and was able to import these materials, that it was our
duty as a nation to treat them (Carranza and Huerta) upon an
equality if we wished to observe the true spirit of neutrality
as compared with a mere paper neutrality.”
If this view were applied to the present case, it would lead to
an embargo on the exportation of arms.
