File No. 841.711/1231
The Counselor of the British Embassy ( Barclay ) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 30.]
My Dear Mr. Lansing : I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th instant and wish to thank you for giving me an early opportunity of [Page 451] removing the misapprehension you appear to be under as regards the character and object of Sir Richard Crawford’s recent visit to New York. He thought that you had understood from your conversation with the Ambassador and with himself that he was going for an informal talk with some representatives of banking interests as to the application of the censorship to certain classes of technical correspondence. This discussion arose primarily out of certain complaints as to delays to which his attention had been directed on various occasions by the vice presidents of two of the principal banks. In this connection Sir R. Crawford was eventually asked to lunch by a banking friend who had likewise invited several colleagues for a frank and informal discussion of the difficulties. Sir R. Crawford’s remarks on this subject were confined strictly to an explanation of the methods of the censorship, with examples of the delays involved, and of the facilities accorded for the rapid examination of certain classes of documents. His observations were in fact a summary of the explanatory statements already published in the Philadelphia Public Ledger of August 27 and in various other papers, of which copies are enclosed herewith.
In the course of conversation on this subject some of those present referred to the statutory list of persons in the United States with whom British subjects are prohibited from trading, and Sir Richard Crawford was pressed for an explanation of the reasons which had made it necessary to publish such a list. He then briefly described the provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act and of the later measure extending that act to trading with persons outside enemy territory under heavy penalties on all British subjects who infringed these provisions. This explanation of the operation and effect of these laws and the consequent necessity to publish the statutory list has, as you are no doubt aware, been given over and over again.
Throughout these informal conversations Sir Richard Crawford was careful to avoid any remarks which could be interpreted as touching upon any points of law or principle which are the subject of diplomatic negotiation between our Governments, and he expressly reminded those present that it was not in his province, and that he was indeed unable, to express any opinion upon such aspects of the matters discussed.
It will be obvious to you from the above that there was no intention on the part of Sir Richard Crawford nor, indeed, has it ever been the desire of any member of this Embassy to endeavour to weaken the efforts of the United States Government “to maintain the rights of American traders by substituting in a degree direct discussion with them for a diplomatic discussion on the subject by our Governments.”
I need hardly add that both Sir Richard Crawford and I fully appreciate and reciprocate the sentiments expressed in the last paragraph of your letter and we much regret that any misunderstanding should have arisen.
I am [etc.]