File No. 656.119/339
Statement by the Department of State, Published April 13, 1918, in Reply to the Declaration of the Netherland Government, Published March 30 1
The Netherlands Government have issued a statement relative to the recent action of the Government of the United States in putting into its service for the period of the present war emergency certain privately owned vessels of Netherlands registry lying within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. While this action is referred to as being indefensible from the standpoint of international law, the statement of the Netherlands Government does not argue the question of legality. Nor is this Government disposed to do so. The practice of nations and the opinions of jurists on the right of a belligerent to utilize all private property Which comes voluntarily and unconditionally within its jurisdiction are sufficiently well known to render citation of precedent and of authority unnecessary. But, as the Netherlands Government itself suggests, our action must be subjected to a finer test than that of mere legality. It matters very little that our act be legal if, as alleged, it violates traditional friendship and is inconsistent with ideals of right and justice.
The Netherlands Government first declare that the very presence of Dutch ships in our ports resulted from our detention of them with an unfriendly hand. While our right to refuse bunkers and cargo licenses is conceded, friendship, it is said, should have led to the granting of special privileges in favor of the subjects of a friendly state. Our own supply of bunker coal at seaboard has been inadequate for our pressing national needs. The cargoes which were demanded were largely of grain, of which our own reserves are all too low. The bunkers, if granted, would have served to carry this grain to the Netherlands where, as events have demonstrated, it was not then needed and where it would only have served to release equivalent [Page 1461] foodstuffs for the enemy. Such action upon our part, whatever its intention, would in fact have been an act beneficial to the enemy and having no relation to our friendship to the Netherlands. The owners of Dutch ships were, however, unwilling that their ships should perform any other services than those which it was clearly impossible for us to facilitate, and the ships of this maritime nation accordingly lay idle for many months and until the conclusion on January 25, 1918, of the temporary shipping agreement1 which was proposed by the Netherlands commissioners at London and accepted by the United States as a measure to restore to immediate activity that portion of the Netherlands mercantile fleet lying within our waters.
The statement of the Netherlands Government seems to imply that this agreement was in fact lived up to by the Netherlands Government, yet evidence to the contrary is found in the statement itself which refers to German objections as having prevented performance by that Government of what is erroneously referred to as America’s demand, but what was in reality a Netherlands undertaking, that when a Dutch ship left the United States for the Netherlands a corresponding Dutch vessel should simultaneously leave the Netherlands for the United States. Had not the Netherlands Government, under German threats of violence, which were a matter of common knowledge, felt unable to carry out the temporary shipping agreement, it is inexplicable that the S.S. Samarinda and Adonis would not have sailed for a Dutch port with their cargoes of foodstuffs which under the agreement the Netherlands was to receive, and of which it was asserted her people were in direst need. Indeed the statement of the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs made to Parliament on March 12, 1918, if it is correctly reported to us, sets out in considerable detail Germany’s objections which prevented performance of this shipping agreement. As recently as March 14, 1918, after the Netherlands Government had been informed that the situation had reached a point where the Associated Governments could see no alternative but requisitioning, a note was presented on behalf of the Netherlands Government,2 expressing the hope that Germany’s objections might still be overcome, so as to permit at some future date complete performance of this agreement, which was to have been put into operation immediately and completely upon its conclusion nearly two months before.
It is finally suggested by the statement of the Netherlands Government that it was an unfriendly act for the United States to desire that ships of Netherlands registry be employed in a service which would involve the carriage of materials of war for a belligerent. No [Page 1462] principle of international law is known which renders it improper for a neutral to perform such a service. If, however, this were the principle the Netherlands Government itself would be among the first to be condemned thereby, since during the period of the war its river barges have constantly been employed in carrying for the German Government materials regarded as contraband by both groups of belligerents.
One year ago, the United States abandoned its neutrality and pledged its entire resources of life and treasure to ensure the triumph of democracy over autocracy and to assist to save the world from the blight of militarism. As a result of a species of naval warfare directed against belligerents and neutrals alike which the Netherlands Government have themselves declared to be illegal, there has during this period existed a shortage of shipping which threatens to postpone at frightful cost the ultimate victory. This has created an emergency which in magnitude and significance has seldom if ever before been equaled. During this period there have been lying in ports of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction and control approximately 500,000 tons of ships of Netherlands registry. At any time within a year the United States might have exercised its right to put these ships into a service useful to it. Yet it forebore and for many months patiently negotiated, first in Washington and then in London, until finally the temporary agreement of January 25 was entered into. No sooner was this agreement concluded than it broke down under German threats of violence which overruled the will of the Netherlands Government expressed therein. Then and then only did the United States take steps to accomplish through the exercise of its own right that which it was hoped could have been accomplished by agreement, and which the Netherlands Government had been willing in part so to accomplish.
The action taken leaves available to the Netherlands Government by far the greater part of their merchant marine and tonnage, which according to estimates of their own officials is ample for the domestic and colonial needs of the Netherlands. Shipping required for these needs will be free from detention on our part and will be facilitated by the supplying of bunkers. The balance is being put into a highly lucrative service, the owners receiving the remuneration and the Associated Governments assuming the risks involved. In order to insure to the Netherlands the future enjoyment of her merchant marine intact, not only will ships be returned at the termination of the existing war emergency, but the Associated Governments have offered to replace in kind rather than in money any vessels which may be lost whether by war or marine risk. One hundred thousand tons of bread cereal which the German Government when appealed [Page 1463] to refused to supply have been offered to the Netherlands by the Associated Governments out of their own inadequate supplies, and arrangements are being perfected to tender to the Netherlands Government other commodities which they desire to promote their national welfare, and for which they may freely send their ships.
The statement of the Netherlands Government explicitly recognizes the traditional friendship of the United States toward their country. It recognizes that we have heretofore sought to act in accordance with the dictates of right and justice and to champion the interests of smaller nations. It should not therefore hastily be presumed that we have now abruptly repudiated that friendship and been false to those ideals. It is in fact difficult to believe that such a conclusion could be drawn from this exercise of our rights in a manner which scrupulously safeguards and indeed promotes the national interests of the Netherlands.