File No. 341.622a/126
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Page) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 13, 8.20 a. m.]
4289. Appended is the text of Sir Edward Grey’s memorandum dated May 8 which reached me this morning following the conversation I reported in my 4284, May 11, 6 p. m.
Before the receipt of your 3285,1 May 6, 12 noon, I had under the instructions contained in your 3233,2 April 22, 4 p. m., presented the subject to the British Government in the most formal manner by a personal visit to the Foreign Office, when I urged the case strongly, leaving an aide mémoire embodying your contentions. (See my mail despatch 3625, May 4.3) Under this formal presentation it would [Page 643] seem natural for the written answer to take the form of a memorandum without derogating from the formality of the reply:
The aide mémoire given me by the American Ambassador on the 27th April renews the request of the American Government for the release of the persons taken from the American mail steamer China by His Majesty’s ship Laurentic and hopes for an expression of regret at the occurrence.
His Majestys Government having agreed, as the American Ambassador was informed verbally on the 5th instant, to release the persons in question in deference to the request and arguments put forward by the American Government, it seems unnecessary to discuss the arguments in the American aide mémoire and, as far as the present incident is concerned, His Majesty’s Government declare their intention to release the persons, as requested and express their regret at the occurrence.
To prevent future misunderstanding, it is, however, desirable that this incident should not become a precedent for other cases in which the facts are not the same. The American aide mémoire states as regards this case:
The only question is one of fact, namely, whether those removed from the China are military or naval persons. The facts in question are not doubtful. The evidence in the possession of the Department of State shows that the vessel is a regular mail steamer plying between China and the United States; that it never postponed its sailing from time to time, as alleged, on account of the presence of British vessels in the offing; that those who took passage thereon were not of military age or character; that they were traveling on individual tickets from the United States, that is, from one neutral country to another, and not as members of a military corps; that the vessel was not chartered for the particular purpose of their transportation, but that they were transported simply as passengers on an American steamer in the ordinary course of its passenger service.
It is not desired to raise hypothetical questions of other cases which may occur by the removal of enemy subjects from neutral vessels, but His Majesty’s Government think it right to recite this statement of facts of the present case in order that the precedent may only be applied in the future to cases in which the facts are the same.
The American aide mémoire goes on to observe—
Even if the individuals removed were intriguing to foster rebellion in India and China, that fact cannot make them, ipso facto, subject to seizure on an American vessel on the high seas or in neutral jurisdiction. If, as alleged, they were intriguing in Chinese territory, the complaint of His Majesty’s Government was clearly one to be laid before the Government of China. It is contended by the Government of the United States that His Majesty’s Government had no more right to invade the neutral jurisdiction of an American vessel in order to apprehend these persons than to invade the neutral jurisdiction of China for that purpose. Moreover, if they were about to extend their activities to the commission of violation of the neutrality of the United States that fact cannot be accepted as an excuse for their seizure on the high seas. The Government of the United States alone is responsible for any breaches of neutrality which may be committed or attempted in its territory and it cannot concede to foreign power the privilege of avoiding the possibility of such breaches by wrongful interference with American vessels.
His Majesty’s Government do not desire to raise any question of altering the established international rule in this respect without the consent of other governments; but it may be suggested that the organized activity of enemy agents in this war, their ubiquity, their ingenuity, violations of neutrality perpetrated or planned by them, have made more difficult, more complicated and more invidious than ever before, the responsibility of neutral governments for any breaches of neutrality committed or attempted in the territories. It is suggested in view of the experience of this war, that the American Government might find it not unreasonable to consider whether in future years there should not by international agreement be allowed some greater power in controlling the movement of enemy subjects across the seas, at any rate in cases where there is prima facie evidence of [intent] to use neutral territory to commit criminal or hostile acts.