File No. 763.72111R24/77
The British Ambassador ( Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State
Sir: I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your courteous letter of the 27th of November, in which you are good enough to transmit to me warrants of pardon received from the Attorney General granted to Dr. Thomas Addis and Mr. Ralph K. Blair, convicted by the Federal Court at San Francisco for an infraction of the neutrality laws of the United States, on account of their activities in facilitating the passage to Great Britain of trained British soldiers.
In accordance with your request I have not failed to transmit the warrants to their destination.
In acknowledging the receipt of your letter I venture to express the hope that, if there be no objection, an expression of my thanks may be conveyed to the President for his exercise of Executive clemency. I would also beg you, if this be in accordance with precedent, to express, on behalf of this Embassy, a warm acknowledgment of the courtesy and the conciliatory spirit with which this difficult and embarrassing subject has been handled by the Department of Justice, with whom, by and with the consent of the State Department, I have from time to time conferred.
I take this occasion of reviewing in summary form the events which led to the conviction of these gentlemen. When war broke out the problem which presented itself to my Government, in an urgent form, was the collection and transport from foreign countries of the great number of trained British soldiers whose services were required at home. German and Austrian consuls were allowed to make money advances for the return of German and Austrian trained men to their native countries. I had every reason to suppose that my own Government would be accorded equality of treatment. After taking legal advice from the best available authority I caused Messrs. Addis and Blair, who had volunteered [Page 540] their services, to be informed that there was no objection to their assisting in the selection and despatch of trained British soldiers, subjects of Great Britain and resident in this country, who might desire to return home to place their services at the disposal of their Government, provided there was no binding contract to serve on arrival in England. The Department of Justice took a different view of the law and proceedings were instituted. I at once appealed to your Department, urging that it was not in conformity with equality of treatment, or international law, that British subjects should be discriminated against on the ground that compulsory military service was not enforced in Great Britain: I also drew attention to the fact that the United States was in a similar situation and that it was not to be expected that such a discrimination should be made against my country by the one great power which, like ourselves, was not a military nation.
You replied that the interpretation of the law was a matter for the courts to decide and that you could not discuss the matter until the legal remedy was exhausted. You were good enough to place me in communication with the Department of Justice with a view to securing a prompt decision. An agreement was accordingly made with a view to this object. Unfortunately the case broke down on a technical point and it became necessary to order a new trial. I was bound to acquiesce. But the defendants, who were anxious to place their services at the disposal of the British and United States Governments, now that the United States had entered into the war, thought it would be wiser to plead guilty at once and appeal for Executive clemency in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. They pleaded guilty: and were condemned to pay a fine (without imprisonment). The fine was paid but they were under the disabilities of condemnation for infraction of the law. Their appeal for Executive clemency met with success. And as far as they are concerned the matter is at an end. The legal remedy is thus exhausted and I now have the honour to recommend to your consideration the diplomatic aspect of the case.
Firstly, as to the plea of guilty put up by Messrs. Addis and Blair. It was not in any way an admission of criminal intent and was intended as a mere admission of the facts, submitting them to the action of the courts. So far indeed was there no criminal intent that they gave proof of a very earnest desire to refrain from anything which would be in contravention of the laws of the United States. Their plea was put in entirely on their own responsibility and presumably with a view to avoiding further personal inconvenience and an indefinitely prolonged litigation. It was not done at the instance of His Majesty’s Government, in whose eyes the intentions of Messrs. Addis and Blair were altogether innocent. But [Page 541] the courts of the United States have condemned them and have interpreted the law in the sense that the acts done by Messrs. Addis and Blair were illegal.
Secondly, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government the law as thus interpreted is not in conformity with the law of nations or with the equality of treatment which Great Britain has the right to claim, and I have therefore the honour to suggest for the consideration of your Government that if this view appears to them well founded, such amendments may be introduced into the existing neutrality laws as may be judged right and proper, and may establish equality of treatment for the future.
I have [etc.]