Office of the Historian

500.A15a3/765: Telegram

The Chairman of the American Delegation (Stimson) to the Acting Secretary of State

[Paraphrase]
London, March 19, 1930—7 p.m.
[Received March 19—5 p.m.]

147. The following as substitute for subdivisions 1 and 2 of article 1 of submarine treaty was suggested by Malkin, legal adviser of British Foreign Office:84 [Page 68]

  • “1. In their action with regard to merchant ships submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface war vessels are subject;
  • 2. In particular except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on summons, or of active resistance to visit or search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink a merchant vessel without having first placed the passengers, crew and ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this reason the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.”

Mr. Root’s purpose of clearly defining for the benefit of public opinion the rules of international law preventing inhumane practices against merchant vessels are fully met, in the opinion of Malkin and my own adviser, Rublee, in the foregoing. Both Malkin and Rublee believe it an improvement in its definition of “a place of safety”. In their opinion French criticism of Root’s article for combining rules of visit and search with rules for protecting life is to a certain degree well founded and they feel that in that respect this proposal is superior.

The fact that it comes from the British who are chiefly interested in limiting submarine attack against commerce and the fact that it may satisfy the French who are actively opposing the Root form makes it worthy of careful consideration but I am not committed to this, however. Does Root see any serious objection to this substitute? I should like to know.

Stimson
  1. Quoted passage not paraphrased.↩