File No. 656.119/481

The Netherland Chargé ( De Beaufort) to the Secretary of State

[Translation]

Mr. Secretary of State: I have the honor to transmit herewith to Your Excellency a note of my Government, dated May 13, about the requisition of Dutch vessels in United States ports.

[Page 1492]

I beg leave to add, in reply to an oral inquiry of the State Department, that the Royal Government has no objection to the publication of the notes exchanged between that Government and the Government of the United States, on the subject of the requisition of Dutch vessels, provided that the publication shall also include the note herein enclosed.

Be pleased to accept [etc.]

W. de Beaufort
[Enclosure—Translation]

The Netherland Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Department of State

The Queen’s Government has had the honor to receive the note of the Secretary of State of the United States of April 14 [12].

Having made the earlier declarations which it can not but maintain, the Netherlands Government will confine itself to offering the following few remarks. It will not again point out the inaccuracy of the information upon which the American Government had based its conclusions, an important point which its note passes over in silence.

The American Government declares that its right—styled right of angaria—is unquestionable, but does not disprove that that right, if it be one, never did or could be applied to a whole fleet of merchant vessels which entered in good faith the ports of a belligerent or that such a seizure of alien property could not be justified by the need felt by that belligerent to augment at any moment its own tonnage reduced by war losses. That essential point is also passed over in silence.

The American Government again seeks to justify the seizure of the Dutch ships by alleging that the Netherlands were not in position to conform to the terms of the modus vivendi concluded in January for the sailing of the Dutch vessels pending the conclusion of a final arrangement. Such was not the case as has been explicitly shown by the Netherlands Government. The execution of the modus vivendi though delayed mainly by the defective transmission of cablegrams was making fair progress, the ships were nearly all chartered, some were already at sea when the Associated Governments in return for an advance of 100,000 tons of wheat asked by the Queen’s Government for the food consumption of the people of the Netherlands unexpectedly demanded, first, to have vessels aggregating more than a half million tons placed at their disposal, and then 24 hours later, added a clause further requiring those vessels to be employed in the danger zone, contrary to the condition expressly stipulated in the London preliminary negotiations, contrary also to the principles of [Page 1493] neutrality in so far as it would bring into play a service of transportation and supplies for one of the belligerents.

In ascribing to Germany’s interference the delay experienced in carrying out the modus vivendi the American Government confounds the provisional with the final arrangements. With respect to the modus vivendi; Germany objected to other ships being sent in exchange for those which, on the special request of the Netherlands should bring from America cargoes for the Relief Commission, but that was not an essential point in the modus vivendi and the said objection did not otherwise hamper the execution of that provisional arrangement whose sole object was to utilize Dutch vessels between overseas ports to the very advantage of the Associated countries themselves. As for the final arrangement it is true that Germany at first objected to Dutch vessels leaving the Netherlands in exchange for those which might come to the Netherlands from America, but she finally made concessions on that point which opened a way for an understanding between the Netherlands and the Associated Governments. Such an understanding, however, could not be arrived at because of the above-mentioned condition thereto attached by the Associated Governments which was inconsistent with the neutrality of the Netherlands.

The free use of Dutch vessels in the trade with the United States was not, as alleged by the American Government, interrupted by the submarine warfare, as the Dutch vessels in America could very well navigate the seas out of the danger zone and reach the Netherlands by taking the free lane.

Besides, no matter what injuries are done to a neutral by one of the belligerents, those ways could in no wise justify an act of violence on the part of the other belligerent to the detriment of that neutral.

The Netherlands Government is unable to believe that the American Government can seriously wonder at the deep resentment aroused throughout the country by the measure complained of and the manner of its execution. In the eyes of the Government and people of the Netherlands that attitude is unwarranted and inconsistent with the traditional friendship uniting the two nations.