740.00111A.R.–N.C./82
The Ambassador in Brazil (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 11.]
Sir: In continuation of my previous despatches on the subject, I have the honor to report that the Inter-American Neutrality Committee met yesterday following the recent recess of the full Committee. In view of the absence of the Costa Rican member, it took no definitive action at this meeting, and will not do so until he arrives next week. The meeting was confined to a continuation of the informal preliminary discussions that have been taking place during [Page 293] the past week or so and a statement by the chairman, Dr. Afranio de Mello Franco, of matters to be included in the agenda for future meetings.
The agenda will provide for various and sundry specific questions brought up by individual governments falling both within and without the general problem of the security zone. The first of these will be that of submarine mines. Simultaneously the Committee will make a comprehensive study of the security zone itself and the problems involved in it.
Dr. Fenwick has drawn up a tentative outline for an approach to the general question of the security zone dealing with the definition of the zone, the “inherent rights” on which it is based, et cetera. One of the vital elements in this outline is the means of commanding respect for the zone on the part of belligerents. Formerly Dr. Fenwick had apparently entertained the idea of using American naval forces not only to patrol the zone but also actually to enforce respect for it through destroying or seizing belligerent vessels that violated it. He now feels that reliance must be placed solely in peaceful means, of which he is planning to suggest two for discussion, viz. (a) the withdrawal of port privileges from vessels of the same flag as those violating the zone, and (b) the internment of belligerent merchant vessels harboring in American ports while not actually engaged in commerce.
With reference to (b) above, he is inclined towards the internment of all German vessels now in American ports. This view proceeds from the following line of thought: The German merchant vessels now in American ports are a disturbance to the peace of those ports and the security zone; they are not engaged in regular commerce; they lie in port indefinitely, departing when not expected to depart, and as often as not remaining in port after feinted departure; they are a cause of the presence in American waters of large numbers of allied war vessels seeking to capture them; they therefore constitute a disturbance of the peace. To correct this Dr. Fenwick would recommend the internment of belligerent vessels that remain in an American port longer than a given period of time. Apparently this idea appeals to most of the other members of the Committee, the principal point of disagreement being whether or not they should be given a period of grace (of say thirty days after notice) in which to leave, as Dr. Fenwick would provide.
It may be worth noting in connection with the general work of the Committee that although the Committee likes to maintain its identity as an organ of the Pan-American Union in no way answerable to or influenced by any one of the American governments (an attitude shared by Dr. Fenwick), Dr. Fenwick welcomes expressions of the views of the individual American governments, particularly those concerning [Page 294] the security zone; he takes the realistic view that the Committee should strive to produce resolutions that are not only just but also workable—that it would be quite futile for it to work in a vacuum, making resolutions that were fine in theory but unworkable in practice because unacceptable to the governments concerned.
Respectfully yours,
Counselor of Embassy