File No. 763.72111Z1/24
The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 23.]
Sir: I duly communicated to His Majesty’s Government the protest made by the United States Government, as set forth in your note No. 1020 of the 17th December last, against the action taken by the commander of H. M. S. Isis in boarding and searching the American steamship Zealandia off Progreso, Mexico, on the 5th November last.
I have now the honour to inform you, under instructions from His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that His Majesty’s Government, after considering the reports received by them, maintain their view that the Zealandia, at the time when the search took place, was lying outside the three-mile limit from the shore. The fact that she was moored at a spot which is claimed to be situated within the limits of the harbour of Progreso, and that she was at the time in charge of Mexican customs officials cannot be [Page 680] admitted by His Majesty’s Government to deprive them of justification for exercising the recognized belligerent right of visit and search.
His Majesty’s Government are, however, desirous to give the fullest consideration to the view taken by the United States Government in this case, and I am instructed to enquire upon what precedents, if any, the contention is based that a vessel lying outside the three-mile limit, but in charge of customs officials of a neutral and independent country, should be regarded as exempt from the right of visit and search. In this connection I may venture to point out that in conformity with the doctrine accepted by the general consent of nations including the United States, and also confirmed by the United States courts, His Majesty’s Government lost no time in communicating to the Mexican Government with whom it would properly lie to take action in the matter, the full facts of the case including the circumstances which explained the discrepancy between the estimate of the distance from shore made by Mexican officials, and that made (under a more trustworthy and accurate process) by the British commander.
The Mexican Government has made no complaint to His Majesty’s Government of any violation of Mexican waters and sovereignty on the part of His Majesty’s ship Isis.1
I have [etc.]
- This last paragraph was omitted in an amended copy of the note received March 15, 1916, accompanied by a memorandum, dated March 11, 1916, stating: “The British Embassy have now received a telegram from the Foreign Office stating that the Acting Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs did telegraph a complaint to Sir Edward Grey direct” (File No. 763.72111Z1/26).↩