File No. 656.119/481
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.
[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.
