File No. 763.72112/2770
The Consul General at London ( Skinner ) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 31.]
Sir: Referring to my No. 2123 of June 22, 1916,1 and various other despatches transmitting lists of blacklisted firms in various parts of the world, I have the honor to enclose herewith the most recent list made public on July 18, in which will be found, for the first time, a list of names of concerns doing business in the United States.1 The publication of this American list has created much surprise, even in Great Britain, and it is extremely doubtful whether the action of the Government meets with general approval.
It is difficult to understand precisely why the authorities deem it necessary at this time to select some 80 American concerns for inclusion in what is called the statutory list, inasmuch as all of these firms, and many others besides, are already included in the real black list, and commercial operations with all of these concerns are practically impossible as far as lies within the power of the British Government to render them so. Apparently there is only a shadowy difference between inclusion in the statutory list and in the general list, the main difference being that if British firms undertake to trade with those who are proclaimed in the statutory list they are at once subject to severe and clearly defined penalties, while if they trade with those in the general list their legal responsibilities are uncertain. No firm in either list is allowed to ship goods through the British blockade, the mere appearance of the name of a blacklisted firm being regarded as creating a presumption that an enemy destination of the goods is intended.
Some days ago a London firm, being desirous of entering into business relations with Messrs. Herskovits & Co. of New York, and [Page 424] having found that they were not regarded as desirable consignors or consignees, applied to me for information. Inasmuch as the New York concern was not on the statutory list, I requested the Ambassador to ascertain precisely what legal disabilities attended the carrying on of trade with Messrs. Albert Herskovits & Co. The Foreign Office replied some days ago in the following terms:
With reference to the note which you were good enough to address to me on the 7th instant, I have the honor to inform your excellency that, as Messrs. Herskovits and Son are not regarded at present as suitable consignees for British goods for the reasons stated in my previous note, firms in this country have been advised not to trade with them. His Majesty’s Government are unable to contemplate the possibility of such advice being disregarded by any British firm.
The American firms now named in the statutory list comprise only a small proportion of the total number with whom commercial relations are discouraged. Some firms of German origin, or with Germanic names, have not been included, such firms having purchased Anglo-French bonds. Still others have been omitted who, I am reasonably sure, are more objectionable than others whose names are published.
In the case of Messrs. Knauth, Nachod and Kuhne, the Department may recall that some time last year this firm went to great trouble in order to accommodate itself to the wishes of the British Government, as a means of remaining in correspondence with Parrs Bank Limited of London.
I deem it quite likely that the names of other American firms will be added to the statutory list from week to week unless the Government should see fit to revise its point of view respecting this question.
I have [etc.]