File No. 763.72/2525
My Government has given the matter its careful consideration in
consultation with the Allied Governments and, in obedience to my
instructions, I beg to communicate the accompanying memorandum
embodying its views.
[Enclosure—Translation]
Memorandum
3
Upon perusal of the personal letter addressed under date of
January 18 last, by the Honourable Secretary of State of the
United States to the Ambassador of England at Washington, the
Government of His Britannic Majesty could not but appreciate the
lofty sentiments by which Mr. Lansing was inspired on submitting to the
countries concerned certain considerations touching the
defensive armament of merchant vessels. But the enemy’s lack of
good faith, evidenced in too many instances to permit of their
being regarded as isolated accidents, justifies the most serious
doubt as to the possibility of putting into practice the
suggestions thus formulated.
From a strictly legal standpoint, it must be admitted that the
arming of merchant vessels for defence is their acknowledged
right. It was established in some countries by long usage, in
other countries it was expressly sanctioned by the legislator,
such being the case in the United States in particular.
It being so, it seems obvious that any request that a belligerent
forego lawful means of protection from the enemy’s unlawful
attacks, places upon him, who-ever [Page 212] he may be, who formulates the proposition,
the duty and responsibility of compelling that enemy to desist
from such attacks, for the said enemy would otherwise be
encouraged rather to persist in that course. Now, the
suggestions above referred to do not provide any immediately
efficacious sanction.
It is a matter of public knowledge that Germany as early as
August 1914 strewed mines over the northern seas of Europe, and
later other seas, without regard to any of the requirements of
international law. The attendant loss of human lives and of
vessels, though neutral, carrying innocent cargo was large. The
perpetrators of those acts appear to have drawn encouragement
from impunity.
The first act of that nature dates back to October 26, 1914. On
that date, the French mail steamer, Amiral
Ganteaume, unarmed, carrying from one point on the
French coast to another 2,500 civilian refugees largely
consisting of women, children, and old men, was torpedoed
without summons. Many lives were lost. After a thoroughgoing
inquiry into the circumstances of the outrage, France served
every neutral power with a statement thereof, but no useful
result was achieved. As no sanction intervened, crimes of that
description were repeated in large numbers thereafter.
In February of last year, Germany again grew so bold as to
proclaim that it generalized its criminal action while limiting
it to the northern seas of Europe. Whereupon and soon thereafter
it began the same proceedings in the Atlantic Ocean, the
Mediterranean, and wherever a chance offered, and attacked
neutral as well as Allied vessels, passenger ships as well as
freighters.
Great Britain is unable to agree that, upon a non-guaranteed
German promise, human life may be surrendered defenseless to the
mercy of an enemy who, in circumstances of this kind as in many
others, has shown himself to be both faithless and lawless.
At the end of his letter, the Honourable Secretary of State
hypothetically considered the possibility of eventual decisions
under which armed merchant vessels might be treated as auxiliary
cruisers.
It is His Britannic Majesty’s Government’s conviction that the
realization of such a hypothesis which would materially modify,
to Germany’s advantage, the statement of views published in this
respect by the American Government on September 19, 1914, can
not be given practical consideration by the American
authorities.
Such a modification indeed would be inconsistent with the general
principles of neutrality as sanctioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of
the preamble to the 13th convention of The Hague concerning
maritime neutrality. Moreover the result would be contrary to
the stipulations of the 7th convention of The Hague concerning
the transformation of merchant vessels into war ships. Finally
if armed merchant vessels were to be treated as auxiliary
cruisers, they would possess the right of making prizes, and
this would mean the revival of privateering.
