File No. 341.622a/182
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Page) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5 p. m.]
4570. Your 3478, July 1. Following is text of note just received from Foreign Office:
July 17 [1916].
Sir Edward Grey has learnt with some surprise from Mr. Page’s memorandum of the 5th instant, that United States Secretary of State finds Sir E. Grey’s memorandum of the 28th ultimo in the case of the enemy subjects removed from the United States S. S. China unsatisfactory, especially the statement that if His Majesty’s Government had known at the time when the promise was given to release these persons that any of them were military or naval reservists or of military age the promise would not have been given. It appears that the objection felt by Mr. Lansing f006Fr the terms of the memorandum can only be due to a misunderstanding of the reason which suggested them.
The promise to release the prisoners was given in the belief, amongst other reasons, that they were not reservists nor even of military age, but with an express stipulation that the release should not be a precedent for any other [Page 653] case in which all the various conditions attaching to the case of the China did not exist.
It subsequently transpired that some of the prisoners were not only of military age but were actual reservists, and in order to prevent the case of the China from being quoted as a precedent, Sir E. Grey stated that had these facts been known the promise would not have been given. The object of these words was to secure that any future cases should be discussed on their merits without being prejudiced by the case of the China.
If Sir E. Grey were to withdraw the words to which Mr. Lansing takes particular exception, it would follow that the release of the persons removed from the China would be quoted against His Majesty’s Government as a precedent for the release of men of military age and reservists in future. This would be most unfair. Sir E. Grey has made no reproach against the State Department for exacting the fulfilment by His Majesty’s Government of a promise that was given without full knowledge and indeed with some mis-apprehension of the facts, but he is surprised at its being suggested that he should withdraw words which are essential to prevent a promise so given from becoming a precedent and he can not think that such was really Mr. Lansing’s intention.
Sir E. Grey considers the only fair position to be that the case of the China should be a precedent only for future cases in which all the conditions are as stated in Sir E. Grey’s memorandum of May 8, 1916, and should not be a precedent for other cases in which all or any of the facts are not as stated in that memorandum.