DIPLOMATIC NOTES
Prepared by A. F. Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy
NEUTRALS AND THE ENTENTE POWERS
On July 18 the British Government published a list of foreign business firms with which, under the Trading with the Enemies Act, residents of the United Kingdom are forbidden to trade. The list, which contains in all more than 1500 firms, includes the names of 82 American firms and individuals. Similar lists have been issued by France and Italy.
British Explanation
The action of the government was explained by the British Foreign Office as follows:
FIRMS BLACKLISTED
London, August 3.
Syren and Shipping, in the course of an article protesting against American criticism of the British blacklist on certain commercial house; says the total number of blacklisted firms in all countries exceeds 1500, as follows:
Spain, 167; Brazil, 140; Netherlands, 120; Argentina and Uruguay, 95; Morocco, 88; Portuguese East and West Africa, Guinea and Rio Muni, 87; Japan, 86; United States, 85; Norway, 83; Portugal, 79; Sweden, 72; Netherlands and East Indies, 70; Ecuador, 69; Persia, 56; Greece, 50; Philippines, 44; Peru, 41; Chile, 35 ; Bolivia, 22; Cuba, 10; Central America, 5; Paraguay, 3; Colombia, 1.—N. Y. Times, 4/8.
ENGLAND BLACKLISTS 80 CONCERNS HERE; FEW AMERICAN CITIZENS COME UNDER BAN
It will be clear that the policy embodied in the recent act is purely a piece of domestic legislation which only interferes with trade, even in the cases of specified firms, by prohibiting persons domiciled in the United Kingdom from dealing with these firms. It is a consequence simply and solely of the exercise of the right of the state to limit or control, in the interests of the state, the trade relations of its own subjects. As regards the United States’ list this may roughly be divided into four classes:
“First—German firms with head offices or control in Germany.
“Second—German firms incorporated in the United States, and therein technically American entities. We have dealt with these firms on their merits. In these cases something more has been required to qualify to for the statutory list than German nationality, either assisting the enemy by loans, propaganda or in regard to contraband.
“Third—Except in so far as covered by the first or second qualifications, United States citizens as a rule have not been placed on the list. If any are there it is because they are sole agents for enemy firms resident in enemy territory.
“Fourth—When, however, clear abuse of cable facilities has been proved, a firm or individual may be found on the list. By abuse is meant the use of a secret code or of cloaks to cover the fact that cables are being used in a particular interest. In very few such cases will these be found to be United States’ citizens.”—N. Y. Times, 18/7.
On July 26 The United States despatched to Great Britain an energetic protest against the British trade blacklist, declaring it “inevitably and essentially inconsistent with the rights of the citizens of all neutral nations.” The note follows:
The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador W. H. Page
Department of State, Washington, July 26, 1916.
You are instructed to deliver to Sir Edward Grey a formal note on the subject of the Enemy Trading Act, textually as follows:
The announcement that His Britannic Majesty’s Government has placed the names of certain persons, firms, and corporations in the United States upon a proscriptive ‘blacklist’ and has forbidden all financial or commercial dealings between them and citizens of Great Britain has been received with the most painful surprise by the people and government of United States, and seems to the government of the United States to embody a policy of arbitrary interference with neutral trade against which it is its duty to protest in the most decided terms.
The scope and effect of the policy are extraordinary. British steamship companies will not accept cargoes from the proscribed firms or persons or transport their goods to any port, and steamship lines under neutral ownership understand that if they accept freight from them they are likely to be denied coal at British ports and excluded from other privileges which they have usually enjoyed, and may themselves be put upon the blacklist. Neutral bankers refuse loans to those on the list and neutral merchants decline to contract for their goods, fearing a like proscription. It appears that British officials regard the prohibitions of the blacklist as applicable to domestic commercial transactions in foreign countries as well as in Great Britain and her dependencies, for Americans doing business in foreign countries have been put on notice that their dealings with blacklisted firms are to be regarded as subject to veto by the British Government. By the same principle Americans in the United States might be made subject to similar punitive action if they were found dealing with any of their own countrymen whose names had thus been listed.
effects of the blacklist
“The harsh and even disastrous effects of this policy upon the trade of the United States and upon the neutral rights upon which it will not fail to insist are obvious. Upon the list of those proscribed and in effect shut out from the general commerce of the world may be found American concerns which are engaged in large commercial operations as importers of foreign factures to foreign countries and which constitute important channels through which American trade reaches the outside world. Their foreign affiliations may have been fostered for many years, and when once broken cannot easily or promptly be re-established.
“Other concerns may be put upon the list at any time and without notice. It is understood that additions to the proscription may be made ‘whenever on account of enemy nationality or enemy association of such persons or bodies of persons it appears to His Majesty expedient to do so.’ The possibilities of undeserved injury to American citizens from such measures, arbitrarily taken, and of serious and incalculable interruptions of American trade are without limit.
“It has been stated on behalf of His Majesty’s Government that these measures were aimed only at the enemies of Great Britain and would be adopted and enforced with strict regard to the rights of neutrals and with the least possible detriment to neutral trade, but it is evident that they are inevitably and essentially inconsistent with the rights of the citizens of all the nations not involved in war. The government of the United States begs to remind the government of His Britannic Majesty that citizens of the United States are entirely within their rights in attempting to trade with the people or the governments of any of the nations now at war, subject only to well-defined international practices and understandings which the government of the United States deems the government of Great Britain to have too lightly and too frequently disregarded.
“There are well-known remedies and penalties for breaches of blockade, where the blockade is real and in fact effective, for trade in contraband, for every unneutral act by whomsoever attempted. The government of the United States cannot consent to see those remedies and penalties altered or extended at the will of a single power or group of powers to the injury of its own citizens or in derogation of its own rights. Conspicuous among the principles which the civilized nations of the world have accepted for the safeguarding of the rights of neutrals is the just and honorable principle that neutrals may not be condemned nor their goods confiscated except upon fair adjudication and after an opportunity to be heard in prize courts or elsewhere. Such safeguards the blacklist brushes aside. It condemns without hearing, without notice, and in advance. It is manifestly out of the question that the government of the United States should acquiesce in such methods or applications of punishment to its citizens.
“Whatever may be said with regard to the legality, in the view of international obligation, of the act of Parliament upon which the practice of the blacklist as now employed by His Majesty’s Government is understood to be based, the government of the United States is constrained to regard that practice as inconsistent with that true justice, sincere amity, and impartial fairness which should characterize the dealings of friendly governments with one another. The spirit of reciprocal trade between the United States and Great Britain, the privilege long accorded to the nationals of each to come and go with their ships and cargoes, to use each the other’s shipping, and be served each by the other’s merchants is very seriously impaired by arbitrary and sweeping practices such as this.
“There is no purpose or inclination on the part of the government of the United States to shield American citizens or business houses in any way from the legitimate consequences of unneutral acts or practices; it is quite willing that they should suffer the appropriate penalties which international law and the usage of nations have sanctioned; but His Britannic Majesty’s Government cannot expect the government of the United States to consent to see its citizens put upon an ex parte blacklist without calling the attention of His Majesty’s Government, in the gravest terms, to the many serious consequences to neutral right and neutral relations which such an act must necessarily involve. It hopes and believes that His Majesty’s Government, in its natural absorption in a single pressing object of policy, has acted without a full realization of the many undesired and undesirable results that might ensue.
“Polk, Acting.”
Measures of Retaliation
Washington, September 5.
A program of retaliation against Great Britain and her allies was provided by the Senate to-day in the form of amendments to the Genera Revenue Bill. The retaliatory measures which the President is authorized to take are drastic, and a significant thing about the Senate’s action is that it was approved in advance by the State Department.
If what was done by the Senate to-day is enacted into law the President it is contended, will find himself empowered to undertake a policy of non-intercourse. This, it is suggested, will lead to commercial warfare with all that such a warfare may mean to future relations between this government and those of the Entente Allies.
The far-reaching importance of this legislation is fully understood here. Both political parties in the Senate are in accord with respect to it, and it is not doubted, in view of that fact and the additional force it obtains trough the approval of the State Department, that it will be accepted by the house, before which it will go in the form of amendments to the revenue measure.
The retaliatory legislation is directed against the British blacklist, the British embargo on the importations of so-called luxuries, including tobacco; the British blockade of neutral ports in northern Europe adjacent to German territory, and British interference with the American mails.—N. Y. Times, 7/9.
England Explains Mail Delays
A statement issued by the British Foreign Office in answer to the United States Note of May 24, and received in Washington August 18, is intended to account for delays in the transmission of United States and other neutral mails. In citing the difficulties encountered in examining mails, is stated that “mail bags marked as dispatched from one neutral country to another neutral country would contain nothing but mails for or from an enemy country; that bags represented as containing printed matter would contain rubber, coffee, jewelry, etc., sometimes disguised as newspapers, as well as correspondence of all kinds, registered and unregistered, or that persons writing to or from enemy countries would already have adopted the practice of sending their letters under cover to intermediaries in neutral countries, or that great numbers of complete sacks appearing to contain merely business circulars from neutral countries would contain in reality nothing but propaganda from Germany under covers bearing neutral postage stamps.”
A schedule is enclosed showing the time required to search mails passing between the United States and Denmark and Holland. The schedule indicates that mails are detained in England not more than from two to seven days. (See N. Y. Times, 15/8.)
Britain and Sweden in Mails Controversy
London, August 24.
The British Government, following the lead of Sweden, has made public the entire correspondence with Sweden concerning British parcel post with the United States and Swedish retaliation in stopping all English parcels in transit to Russia.
The correspondence discloses that the situation has not yet been satisfactorily adjusted. Some of the letters and notes teem with language so sharp as to indicate that the relations of the two countries at one time approached the breaking point.
As a result of the negotiations Sweden recently released 60,000 parcels to Russia under agreement with the British Government to submit the matter to arbitration after the war. The British Government demanded that traffic across Sweden to Russia be not interfered with again, but Sweden declined this proposition, saying it was not included in the original negotiations, whereupon the British Government withdrew its offer to arbitrate.
The correspondence began last December with the first detention at Kirkwall of mails between Sweden and the United States, going in both directions. Count Wrangel, the Swedish Minister in London, protested against this action, declaring that the British authorities, far from wishing to minimize the difficulties arising out of the war, “find pleasure in increasing them.”
Count Wrangel also announced the stoppage of the Russian parcel post until Great Britain should give a guarantee against a repetition of the Kirkwall seizures, which he denounced as “contrary to international law.”—N. Y. Times, 25/8.
The British Blockade System
London, July 8.
The most detailed description of the British system of blockade which has been framed was presented to the members of the American Luncheon Club by Sir Frank Newnes, in an address delivered at the last meeting of the club. Sir Frank is a member of the Royal Volunteer Naval Reserve, and is acting as Assistant Secretary of the Committee on Detention of Neutral Ships, presided over by Lord Peel.
His explanation of the system follows:
“Every ship east or west bound passing up or down the English Channel or by the north of Scotland, is stopped by one of the British men-of-war, boarded and examined. These ships are armed merchantmen and are on duty right across from the north of Scotland to Norway, one ship every 20 miles—they are manned by the Royal Naval Reserve men from the mercantile marine who are used to examining ships’ papers and documents- A copy of the ships’ manifest is then wired up to London—and to give you some idea of the labor involved some ships have between 300 and 600 different descriptions of goods on board, all of which have to be sent out—and thus these telegrams run to many thousands of words. The telegraphed manifest; goes at once before the Contraband Committee, which sits every day and all day, presided over by E. M. Pollock, King’s Counsel and Member Parliament for Warwick. The committee considers each item, and if it had any reasonable suspicion that any items are destined for the enemy the ship will be detained and ordered to unload the suspected items at a suitable port. If she has nothing suspicious the ship can proceed at once; and I may say that the Contraband Committee works so expeditiously that its decision on the ship or goods is nearly always given the same day that the manifest is put before it.
“When the manifest is telegraphed to the Contraband Committee it is also telegraphed to the War Trade Intelligence Department, which has been created for the purpose of supplying information on which the Contraband Committee can decide whether certain goods should be allowed to go forward or not.
“In addition to the Contraband Committee there is the Enemy Exports Committee which deals with goods exported from Germany. This is a much simpler task than dealing with imports into Germany, as American and other countries, for the purpose of their customs, already require that the country of origin shall be given, and the effect has been that the export trade of Germany was almost immediately killed, and there is no doubt that this has been one of the great causes in the fall of the mark, as it compels Germany to pay in gold and not in goods.
“When suspect goods are unloaded from a ship they are at once put into ‘prize,’ and the owner of the goods has to make a claim for their restitution and must bring an action for their recovery. Such actions are tried in the Admiralty Court, which is presided over by Sir Samuel Evans; and goods are released, condemned, or dealt with as the court may deem just.
“I have already told you that the desire of the British Government is to carry out this blockade with as little delay or inconvenience to neutrals as is possible, and I will now give you some of the arrangements made to insure this:
“(1) Guarantees by importers.
“Agreements have been made with representative associations of merchants in neutral countries, under which they undertake that goods consigned to them will not be exported to Germany nor be used in the manufacture of goods which are for export to Germany. The first of these was the Netherlands Oversea Trust, which was so successful that similar associations were formed in other countries—in Denmark the Danish Merchant Guild, and in Switzerland the Societe Surveillance Suisse.
“Goods can now be exported from this country practically under license only, and such licenses are usually granted if the goods are consigned to these associations.
“(2) Agreements with shipping lines: Agreements have been made with many shipping lines under which their ships are allowed to go forward, even if they have contraband on board or are carrying goods which our authorties suspect are for the enemy, on their undertaking to return such goods to this country for the prize court or to retain them in a neutral country until after the war. And in addition to this:
“(3) Bunker coal from any port in the British Empire is refused to neutral ships unless they comply with certain conditions, which insure that me goods they carry do not go to the enemy.
“Both these classes of ships are called ‘White Ships,’ and they are a large and increasing number, and most of the leading lines have made such arrangements. I would strongly advise any of you, when shipping goods, to see that the ship is a ‘White Ship.’ If a ship is not a ‘White Ship,’ there is of course a presumption that it is or may be carrying suspected goods, and thus it may be delayed and you suffer the suspicion attaching to other people’s goods.
‘‘(4) Skinner Scheme—This is a scheme which was suggested by Mr. Skinner, the American Consul General in London. It is this: A department has been opened in the British Embassy at Washington to which an American exporter can go and give particulars of the nature and amount of the goods he desires to export, and also the name of the consignee. The department will at once cable here to the Contraband Committee, who will cable him whether his goods would pass the blockade or not, and thus he can decide whether to ship them. If he ships the goods the papers are marked accordingly, and some American lines will now only take goods which have passed the Skinner scheme.
"(5) Rationing—It has been found that since the war broke out certain neutral countries have been importing a vastly increased amount of certain foods beyond their pre-war and normal requirements, and unless they were formerly importing large quantities of these goods from Germany and Austria there is an overwhelming presumption that they were imported for me purpose of re-export to Germany, and there is no doubt that this was tone on a large scale.
“To avoid this the system of rationing has been adopted under which the import of a given article into a neutral country is limited to the amount of its true domestic requirements, it is a very fair system, allowing as it does any neutral to carry on its own legitimate trade and to supply its own wants.
“You will note thus that it may happen that when you apply to the War Trade Department for a license to export certain articles to neutral countries it may be refused not because there is any doubt in regard to your consignee, but for the reason that the country has already been supplied with the rationed amount of such goods.”—N. Y. Times, 23/7.
Objections to Declaration of London
Commending the action of the Entente Powers in abandoning the Declaration of London, the Marine Engineer and Naval Architect (London, August, 1916) takes up the history of the Declaration and outlines the British objections to it as follows:
“The origin of the declaration was a proposal at The Hague Convention 1907, involving the establishment of an international prize court to take me place of the British prize courts, and it is interesting to note that the British delegates pressed this proposal very strongly and the German Plenipotentiary actually moved its adoption. A further proposal that private property except contraband should be exempt from capture at sea was opposed by Great Britain, but not conditionally. Eventually 14 conventions were drawn up and an international naval congress was summoned in London to draw up a code for the international prize court. The following were the main features which, under German influence, were embodied in the declaration:
“1st. That neutral ships could not be condemned if less than half their cargo was contraband.
“2d. That neutral ships could transport enemy troops.
“3d. That neutral ships with false papers, carrying contraband, could escape seizure.
“4th. That commodities such as cotton, rubber, metallic ores, wool and oil-cake could in no case be declared contraband.
“5th. That enemy correspondence carried by neutral ships could not be seized.
“6th. That practically every act of the British Navy was to be submitted to an alien tribunal, and
“7th. That the right of capture was practically abolished by the omission of rules for determining the ownership of goods.
“The provisions when finally settled were included in the Naval Prize Bill which was passed by the House of Commons, but, fortunately for the nation, the bill was thrown out by the Lords in 1911. In August, 1914, an Order in Council was issued putting in force the rejected declaration with certain modifications and additions, and since that time, as the public well know, many proclamations based on the declaration have been issued.
“It may be well to show the unwisdom of the whole proceeding by citing three matters which clearly prove that the declaration was of great convenience to Germany. For instance:
“(1) German and Austrian reservists were allowed free passage in neutral ships to Germany and Austria, until the British Government was forced, by public opinion, to put a stop to this procedure at the end of October, 1914.
“(2) Germany continued to receive consignments of cotton, and it was not until August 22, 1915, that cotton was declared to be absolute contraband.
“(3) German-owned ships were enabled to trade under neutral flags, under Article 57, which altered the prize court law, and this article was no' cancelled until the end of October, 1915.
“Under these conditions the fleet continually received new rules and regulations, and in March, 1915, a new code was set up, but owing to it being of a merely permissive nature, bewilderment became more and more evident.
“It has taken 23 months of the most terrible war that the world has ever seen to indicate to the British Government the necessity of putting an end to the state of things which not only fettered the British Navy, but caused grave and increasing anxiety to those members of the British public who saw, day by day, the great advantages accruing to the Central Empires and the disadvantage under which the Allies were carrying on the war owing to the unfortunate conditions set up by the ill-starred procedure under the Declaration of London.”
Anglo-Russian Agreement With Persia
Petrograd, August 7.
Great Britain and Russia have just concluded an understanding Persia strengthening the friendly relations between the three country according to a dispatch to the semi-official Russian News Agency from Teheran.
“The Ministers of Russia, Great Britain, and Persia,” says the correspondent, “yesterday exchanged notes bringing to a conclusion negotiations which had been in progress between the three countries, creating an entente which definitely strengthens the friendly relations between England, Russia, and Persia.
“A solution mutually favorable to all the parties has been found for questions relating to the financial and military organization of Persia. As regards the military organization, it will be effected in North Persia by the development of the Persian Brigade and in South Persia by the formation of sufficiently strong contingents.”—N. Y. Times, 8/8.
Russia Promised the Dardanelles
On the return to Russia of the Parliamentary delegates who had been visiting Allied countries, the statement, reported in dispatches of July 18, which may presumably be accepted as accurate, was made that an agreement had been reached between Russia and her allies, according to which she was to receive at the conclusion of war both sides of the Dardanelles straits.—N. Y. Nation, 27/7.
The “Bangor” Case
In a decision rendered in the case of the Norwegian steamer Bangor, captured in the Straits of Magellan with coal and stores for German warships, the British Prize Court held that, even granted that the capture occurred in the waters of a neutral state, the legality of the capture could be questioned on this ground only by the neutral state whose waters were violated. The court therefore condemned the ship and her cargo.
The court pointed out that in 1879 the United States Government declared that it would not tolerate exclusive claims by any nation whatsoever to the Straits of Magellan, and would hold responsible any government that undertook, no matter on what pretext, to lay any impost on its commerce through the straits; while in 1881 the Republic of Chile entered into a treaty with the Argentine Republic by which the Straits of Magellan were declared to be neutralized forever, and free navigation was granted to the flags of all nations. The court merely referred to these matters in order to show that was a right of free passage for commercial purposes, and it was not inconsistent with this that the straits should be regarded as the territorial waters of Chile.—Shipping Illustrated, 22/7.
GERMANY
“Appam” Awarded to British Owners
Norfolk, Va., July 29.
American ports may not be used by belligerent nations as asylum for their prizes of war, according to a far-reaching decision rendered here to-day by Judge Edmund Waddill, Jr., in the United States District Court, who holds by that the British steamship Appam, which was brought into Norfolk harbor by Lieutenant Hans Berg and a prize crew from the German raider Mowe, still the lawful property of her British owners.
Judge Waddill, in a 15,000-word opinion, directs that the Appam, with the cargo remaining aboard her and the proceeds of the perishable part thereof already sold, shall be restored at once to the lawful owners.
Judge Waddill’s decision, given after months of consideration, held that the Appam lost her status as a prize when she entered American territorial waters to remain indefinitely. He rejected the German contention that the Prussian-American Treaty of 1799 permitted German prizes to be laid up in American waters, and held that prizes could be brought in only by a war vessel acting as convoy, and then only for the temporary causes recognized by international law. An opinion given by Secretary Lansing to the German Ambassador to the same effect was quoted at length by the court.
A decision by a German prize court that the Appam was a lawful prize was held to be without effect upon proceedings of the courts of the United States. The same German court recently adjudged prize money some 750,000 marks in gold, taken from the Appam when she was captured off the coast of Spain by the raider Mowe.
“The court’s conclusion,” the decision reads, “is that the manner of bringing the Appam into the waters of the United States, as well as her presence in those waters, constitutes a violation of the neutrality of the United States; that she came in without bidding or permission; that she is here in violation of the law; that she is unable to leave for lack of a crew, which she cannot prove or augment without further violation of neutrality that in her present condition she is without a lawful right to be in and remain in these waters; that she, as between her captors and owners, to all practical interests and purposes, must be treated as abandoned and stranded upon our shores, and that her owners are entitled to restitution of then" property, which this country should award irrespective of the prize court proceedings of the Court of the Imperial Government of the German Empire, and it will be so ordered.”—N. Y. Times, 30/7.
Norfolk, Va., August 9.
Counsel for the German Government in the case of the prize ship Appam which was awarded to her British owners by a recent decision of Judge Waddill in the United States District Court here, today filed a formal petition for appeal to the Supreme Court, which was allowed.—N. Y. Herald 9/8.
Execution of Captain Fryatt
Berlin, July 28.
Captain Charles Fryatt of the Great Eastern Railway steamship Brussels, which vessel was captured by German destroyers last month and taken into Zeebrugge, has been executed by shooting after trial before a German naval court-martial. The death sentence was passed upon Captain Fry ad because of his alleged action in attempting previously to ram a German submarine.
Testimony was presented at the court-martial to show that while Captain Fryatt did not belong to the armed forces he had attempted on March 28, 1915, while near the Maas Lightship, to ram the German submarine U-33. Captain Fryatt and the first officer and the first engineer of the Brussels received from the British Admiralty gold watches for "brave conduct,” and were mentioned in the House of Commons.
The submarine U-33, according to the official account of the trial, had signaled to the British steamer to show her flag and to stop, but Captain Fryatt did not heed the signal, and, it is alleged, turned at high speed toward the submarine, which escaped only by diving immediately several yards below the surface.
Captain Fryatt, the official statement says, admitted that he had followed the instructions of the British Admiralty. Sentence was confirmed and the captain was executed and shot for a “franc-tireur crime against armed German sea forces.” The trial was held at Bruges yesterday.
When captured by German torpedo-boats on June 24. Captain Fryatt was piloting the steamship Brussels from Rotterdam to Tilbury. Several German warships dashed out of the naval base at Zeebrugge and escorted the Brussels to the Belgian harbor.—N. Y. Times, 29/7.
London, August 9.
The Foreign Office made public to-day a letter of Viscount Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to Irwin B. Laughlin, Charge d’Affaires of the American Embassy, requesting that Ambassador Gerard in Berlin convey to the German Government the British Government’s desire to enter a formal protest against the execution of Captain Fryatt of the British steamer Brussels by the German authorities in Belgium.
This execution, says Viscount Grey’s letter, the British Government “can only describe as the judicial murder of a British subject held a prisoner of war by the German Government, under conditions in direct violation of the law of nations and the usages of war.”
Citing the circumstances of the trial and the refusal of facilities to Ambassador Gerard, Viscount Grey says:
“The unseemly haste of the trial and execution is sufficient proof that the German authorities were fully conscious of the unwarrantable nature of their action and were anxious to forestall the legitimate outburst of British indignation, while the fact that the intimation of the execution was conveyed only verbally to Ambassador Gerard can only be interpreted as showing the reluctance of the German Government to bring their proceedings to Ambassador Gerard's knowledge in official form.”
Viscount Grey concludes by asking Ambassador Gerard to request the German Foreign Office to provide the full particulars of the whole proceedings.—N. Y. Times, 9/8.
“Deutschland” a Merchant Ship
Washington, July 15.
The State Department formally ruled to-day that the German submarine Deutschland was an unarmed merchant vessel, and took the position that she was entitled to all the rights and privileges belonging to a merchant vessel flying the flag of a belligerent country in a neutral port. The decision's embraced in the following oral announcement by Mr. Polk, Acting Secretary of State:
“In view of the facts in this particular case, the State Department sees no reason why the Deutschland should be considered a war vessel.”
Under this ruling the submarine may leave Baltimore at will, as a merchantman, taking her chances of running the gauntlet of the British Patrol after leaving the three-mile limit off the Virginia capes. The decision was based on reports made by Collector of Customs Ryan at Baltimore, and Captain Charles F. Hughes of the General Board of the Navy, who inspected the Deutschland and reported, that she was a merchant ship and could not be converted into a war vessel or armed except through expensive and extensive structure changes.
A British Opinion
Criticising the Deutschland decision, the Naval and Military Record (London, July 20) takes up the question of ownership, as follows:
“Then arose the further question whether she was a public or private ship—in other words, whether she belonged to the German Government or to a group of private individuals. German agents in the United States immediately announced that she was built to the order of a private company, and was being run for private profit. These statements are open to grave suspicion, because it is apparent that vessels of this size and character cannot carry cargoes sufficiently large and valuable to render them commercial Propositions. The local American authorities, on evidence the character of which has not been revealed, however, came to the conclusion that the Deutschland is an unarmed freight carrier which could not be converted for purposes of offence without extensive structural changes.
“On the other hand, the Allied Governments have decided that the very form and structure of such ships, which enable them to avoid examination and search, remove them from the mercantile class of ships, and that, since they are obviously constructed in avoidance of the requirements of international law, they must be regarded as outside the law and as enemy warmups subject to destruction at sight. Apparently the French Government holds this view very strongly.
“The Germans are singularly clumsy in their methods of procedure. The arrival of the Deutschland at Baltimore was immediately followed by the news that a German submarine had appeared off the small, undefended port of Seaham harbor and fired 30 rounds of shrapnel from a 3-inch gun, killing one woman and doing some injury to property. This incident has illustrated the illegal use to which submarines can be put, while the voyage of the Deutschland has reminded Americans that in time of war they may suffer in a similar manner.”
Washington, September 5.
Secretary Lansing has sent to the Entente Powers a memorandum in the nature of a reply to their recent proposal that all submarines be treated as vessels of war and stating, it is understood, that the United States Government, which has just held the German submarine Deutschland a merchant submarine, cannot subscribe to the doctrine that submarine vessels cannot be divided into those which are merchant and those which are war vessels.
The position of the American Government is that the determination of the status of a submarine must be based on consideration of the facts in each individual case, and that the rule of conduct for a neutral government must be the same with respect to this type of vessel that it is for other craft-Submarines may be merchant ships or warships, and their status is determined by the character and purpose of their armament, the ownership of the vessel, and whether they are privately owned or owned by a government and commissioned as part of the naval forces of that government.
In the case of the Deutschland this government held that she was a merchant submarine and issued orders permitting the vessel to he cleared as such from Baltimore.—N. Y. Times, 6/9.
U-Boat Sinks Italian Liner
London, August 4.
The Italian mail steamer Letimbro has been sunk by a submarine and 28 survivors have arrived at Malta, says a Reuter dispatch from that place. Two boat loads with survivors have also arrived at Syracuse.
The Letimbro carried a crew of 57 and her passengers numbered 113. It is believed that a large number of them lost their lives. The passengers included women and children.
Survivors report that a submarine was observed at a distance of about 6oco meters. It fired a warning shot and then gave chase, firing continuously for half an hour. It finally overtook the Letimbro, which had begun to lower boats.
”The submarine,” adds the dispatch, “continued its bombardment, smashing five boats, the occupants of which perished. Some of the survivors say that many were killed by shellfire.”
All of the crew of the Italian brig Robalio, torpedoed by an Austrian submarine, have arrived at Malta.—N. Y. Times, 4/8.
Attack on the “Owego”
Rotterdam, August 23.
According to information here, the American steamer Owego, regarding a reported submarine attack on which the American Government has inquired of Germany, arrived at this port on August 13 and reported encountering off the Isle of Wight a German submarine, which fired 10 of 12 shots at her without warning. Some of the shells struck the water very close to her but inflicted no damage.
Captain Barlow of the Owego, according to the account given, was a1 first unable to discern the submarine because of a prevailing haze, but upon the undersea craft approaching, he sent a boat with the mate and the ship’s Papers, after examination of which documents the Germans allowed the Owego to proceed.
The submarine officers told the mate of the American vessel, the account says, that they fired because the Owego did not stop immediately in obedience to flags and signals which they displayed. The signals could not be deciphered from the Owego, it is added, owing to the dead calm and the haze.
The Owego unloaded at Rotterdam and sailed for America on August 15.
White Book Disclosures
The third supplement to the “White Book,” issued by the United States department of State on August 15, gives a more definite official statement of the reasons for the recall of Captain Karl Boy-Ed, Naval Attache, and Captain Franz von Papen, Military Attache, of the German Embassy al Washington. A letter from Secretary Lansing to Count von Bernstorff, December 4, 1915, bases the request for the recall of the attaches on their connection “with the illegal and questionable acts of certain persons within the United States.” On Count von Bernstorff’s request for particulars, the State Department, in a note dated December 10, sharply reiterated its demand.
The supplement also contains correspondence relating to the 14 officers and sailors who have escaped from interned German warships at Norfolk. According to the correspondence, two of these, Dr. Keuger Kroneck and second officer Otto Bauer of the Eitel Friedrich, returned to Germany and re-entered active service; two have been caught and returned to the vessels; 3nd one, Lieutenant Otto Koch, was taken by the British from a Danish liner and imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. Nine remain unaccounted for.
"The incidents related,” said Mr. Lansing’s note to the German Ambassador, in which on Nov. 16 last he called these escapes to the German Ambassador’s attention, “have occurred, notwithstanding the fact that at time of the internment of these vessels each commanding officer gave a pledge for himself, officers, and crew not to commit any unneutral acts and not to leave the limits prescribed in paroles. I regret to have to inform your excellency that the United States Government regards the actions of these men as contrary to its express instructions and as breaches of the honorable conduct to be expected of officers and men of visiting and interned ships of war of a belligerent nation, and that consequently the government has been forced to discontinue the custom of paroling the interned officers and men on their honor and otherwise to circumscribe the very liberal privileges which they have heretofore been allowed to enjoy.”— (See N. Y. Times, 18/8.)
ITALY
On August 27 Italy declared through the Swiss Government that it considered itself, from August 28, at war with Germany.
Italy’s formal declaration of war against Germany amounts to little more man official recognition of a state of affairs which already existed. The declaration became inevitable when Italy recently sent troops to Saloniki to cooperate in the campaign of the Entente Allies on the Macedonian front, inasmuch as Germany is directing the opposing forces and has troops on this battle line.
Italy’s position in regard to Germany had been an anomalous one after Italy withdrew from the Triple Alliance on May 23 of last year and declared war on Austria.—N. Y. Times, 28/7.
Rome, July 15.
Italo-German commercial relations have been broken by Italy, according to the Giornale d’ltalia, which says to-day that the agreement providing for the mutual respect by the two nations of the rights of each other’s subjects has been denounced by the Italian Government.—N. Y. Times, 15/7.
Rome, July 21.
A ministerial decree has been issued placing the persons and property of Germans on the same footing as those of Austrians and Hungarians. The decree does not directly mention Germans, but says that allies of Austria are to be treated as enemies and their subjects and goods are liable to sequestration.
Prior to the war German property and interests in Italy were estimated to be worth $250,000,000. Their value is now placed at about $150,000,000. There are only a few German subjects now in Italy, and these will be either placed in concentration camps or sent across the Swiss border.- N. Y. Times, 22/7.
BALKAN STATES
Rumania declared war on Austria-Hungary on August 28, acting evidently in co-ordination with Italy, which declared war on Germany on the same date.
Rumania Justifies Her Course
A note handed to the Austrian Ambassador on August 28 explains Rumania’s motives for entering the war. The note recalls that Rumania 5 previous adherence to the Triple Alliance was based on the “conservative and defensive character” of this league. When the present war broke out Rumania, like Italy, refused to support Germany and Austria in hostilities offensive in character and undertaken without the full knowledge of all nations bound by the alliance. With Italy’s declaration of war, in the spring of 1915, “the Triple Entente no longer existed, and the reasons which determined Rumania’s adherence to this political system disappeared.”
Continuing, the note finds justification for war in Austria’s treatment of Rumanians within her borders. It concludes as follows:
“For a period of 30 years, the Rumanians of Austria-Hungary not only never saw a reform introduced, but, instead, were treated as an inferior race and condemned to suffer the oppression of a foreign element which constitutes only a minority amidst the diverse nationalities constituting the Austro-Hungarian states.
“All the injustices our brothers thus were made to suffer maintained between our country and the monarchy a continual state of animosity. At the outbreak of the war, Austria-Hungary made no effort to ameliorate these conditions. After two years of the war, Austria-Hungary showed herself as prompt to sacrifice her peoples as she was powerless to defend' them. The war, in which almost the whole of Europe is partaking, raises the gravest problems affecting the national development and very existence of the states.
“Rumania, from a desire to hasten the end of the conflict and to safe-guard her racial interests, sees herself forced to enter into line by the side of those who are able to assure her realization of her national unity- For these reasons Rumania considers herself, from this moment, in a state of war with Austria-Hungary.”—N. Y. Evening Post, 29/8.
On August 31 Bulgaria and Turkey declared war on Rumania, Bulgaria’s declaration followed an ultimatum from Rumania demanding the evacuation of Serbian territory and a restoration of the status established by the Treaty of Bucharest.
Allied Demands on Greece
London, September 4.
Following is the text of the note presented to the Greek Government on Saturday night by the ministers of France and England:
By order of their governments, the undersigned ministers of France and Great Britain have the honor to bring the following communication to attention of the Greek Government:
First—The two Allied governments having from a sure source learned that their enemies receive information in divers ways, and, notably through the agency of the Greek telegraphs, demand the control of the posts and telegraphs, including the wireless system.
Second—Enemy agents employed in corruption and espionage must immediately leave Greece not to return until the conclusion of hostilities.
Third—Necessary measures have been taken against such Greek subjects as rendered themselves guilty of complicity in the above-mentioned corruption and espionage.”—N. Y. Times, 4/9.
Demands Accepted
The demands of the Allies, enforced by the presence of an Allied fleet off the Piraeus, have been accepted in their entirety, and the chief German gent in Athens, Baron Schenck, has been arrested by the Allies. Indications are, indeed, that Greece will not long delay in declaring herself in favor of the Allies. Dispatches from Athens on Monday told of an agreement having been reached among parties, by which M. Venizelos and his followers would support the present government of M. Zaimis, to which probably would be added two representatives of the Venizelist party. Later dispatches described the position of M. Zaimis as that of a virtual dictator and declared that Greece’s participation in the war depended now on the decision of the Allies.—N. Y. Nation, 7/9
UNITED STATES .
Purchase of Danish West Indies
The treaty for the purchase by the United States of the Danish West Indes was signed on August 4 by Secretary Lansing and the Danish Minister. The treaty is subject to ratification by the United States Senate and by the Danish Parliament. By conservative members of the latter the prospective sale has been the subject of bitter criticism. The price of the islands, as provided in the treaty, is $25,000,000.—N. Y. Nation, 10/8.
Treaty Held up by Danish Parliament
On August 14 the Danish Folkesthing, or lower house, approved the sale the Danish West Indies by a vote of 62 to 44. On August 24, however, the Landesthing, or upper house, delayed action by a resolution to the effect that, if the sale could not be postponed until after the war, the question should be settled by a general election.
Ratified by U. S. Senate
Washington, September 7.
The Senate this evening, after a debate lasting more than two hours, ratified the treaty between the United States and Denmark for the purchase of the Danish West Indian islands for $25,000,000.
An effort to reduce the purchase price to $10,000,000 was voted down- What appeared to be merely a perfunctory opposition to the treaty was made by Republican senators, led by Clapp, Norris, and Kenyon, all of the Progressive wing of their party.
The treaty was not amended. When the final vote was taken there was no demand for a record roll call.
Copenhagen, September 7.
In well-informed circles it is believed here to-night that whatever the result of the political discussion here may be the sale of the West Indian islands to the United States is now assured. Foreign minister Erik Scavenius has scored a tremendous success, as the opposition is now reduced to a grumbling of two or three newspapers which have attacked the government for home political purposes only.—N. Y. Times, 8/9.
Value of the Islands
While the economic and commercial value of these islands to the United States is not at all vital, their strategic importance is; and that for three reasons:
1. The satisfactory settlement of the problem of mixed sovereignties in the West Indies. With the acquirement of the Danish islands, all lands this side of the Anegada Passage would be either independent, American or British.
2. An end to the continual menace of German or other great power aggression, which the holding by a weak state of strategically located islands must ever invite.
3. A naval base in the West Indies better in all respects than ours at Guantanamo.
The price of $25,000,000, now reported as agreed upon, seems incredible. It is five times as much as that agreed upon 14 years ago. During that period, however, so it is reported, the Danish Government granted a concession in St. Thomas which permitted the organization of a stock company and the selling of its stock to whosoever wished to buy. The report adds that the stock was bought largely by Germans; that the company’s privileges will eventually operate to give Germany control of the harbor of Charlotte Amalie, while placing the responsibility for protection upon the Danish Government; that, in the event of international complications, little Denmark would be unable to give such protection; and that the result of an attempt by Germany to protect the interests of her citizens in St. Thomas would result in an awkward situation both for Denmark and for the United States.—Outlook, 9/7.
Mexico Commission Named
The names of the three American members of the International Joint Commission created to compose the differences existing between the American and Mexican governments were given out by Secretary Lansing on August 23. They are: Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior; George Gray, of Wilmington, Del., former member of the judiciary and until recently Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit, and Dr. John R. Mott, of New York, general secretary of the International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations. To make the record complete we give the names of the Mexican members, which were announced several weeks ago: Luis Cabrera, Minister of Finance in Carranza’s Cabinet; Alberto Pani, President of the Mexican National Railways, and Ignacio Bonillas, Sub-Secretary in the Mexican Department of Communications.—N. Y. Nation, 31/8.
FAR EAST
Chinese Loan Fails
Washington, August 3.
The State Department cabled to the American Legation in Peking to-day statement that the department had been unable to arrange the loan which China had asked the department to obtain from American banking houses, the message gave a summary of the reasons advanced by J. P. Morgan & Co., Kuhn, Loeb & Co., the National City Bank and the First National Bank, all of New York, constituting the American group in the original six-power Chinese loan, for their attitude in the matter.
It was set forth by the State Department that the American group of bankers felt that it would be unwise to invest in any more foreign securities at this time when the American market had all it could handle. It was recited that Chinese Government railroad securities were now down to 72 the United States, and the prospect of floating an additional loan was not hood. For these and other reasons the American group felt it could not engage to handle a new loan for the Chinese Government even of a comparatively small amount.
GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE DESIRED
Underlying the conservative attitude of the American bankers has been the apparent fear that the action of the United States, in March, 1913, in using to be a party to guaranteeing the participation of the American group in the six-power loan, would continue to be applied to any additional to China, even when arranged at the instance of the State Department.—N. Y. Times, 4/8.
Japanese Offers
Peking, September 1.
Being unable to obtain funds in the United States, Chinese officials are unwillingly responding to overtures from Japan to lend $30,000,000 or a larger amount. The money is needed immediately, for China’s financial situation is a desperate one. The indications are that Japan’s assistance will be accepted within a fortnight.
Great Britain, France, and Russia will participate in the Japanese loan. The salt monopoly surplus probably will be the security.—N. Y. Times, 2/9.
Chinese Attack Japanese Garrison
Tokio, August 15.
Chinese troops have attacked the Japanese garrison at Cheng-Chiatun, between Mukden and Chaoyangfu, have killed or wounded 17 Japanese soldiers and killed one officer. According to official advices from Cheng-Chiatun, the Japanese barracks is now besieged by the Chinese soldiers.
Reinforcements are being rushed to the beleaguered garrison from the Japanese forces stationed at Kaiyuan and Sudinghai. The fighting resulted from the arrest of a Japanese merchant.
Cheng-Chiatun, where a Japanese garrison is reported besieged by Chinese troops, is near the line of the Harbin-Changehun Railway, which news dispatches stated had been sold to Japan by Russia under the recent Russo- Japanese treaty. Cheng-Chiatun is also in the neighborhood of the Sungari River. Japanese rights on this river are said to have been recognized by Russia, the question having been in dispute since the signing of the Portsmouth treaty.
Tokio, September 5.
Another clash between Chinese and Japanese troops is officially reported from Chaoyangpo, Mongolia, and has led to the dispatch of heavy Japanese reinforcements.
It is said that the Chinese attacked the Japanese while the Japanese were advancing to mediate between Chinese and Mongolians.—N. Y. Times, 5/9.
Japanese Demands on China
Washington, September 5;
Sweeping demands, far more drastic than any published summaries have indicated, are revealed in the secret terms being pressed on China by Japan as a result of the recent armed conflict between soldiers of the two nations at Cheng-Chiatun, in Inner Mongolia. Private dispatches received here to-day reveal that Japan seeks indemnities, an apology, and political concessions throughout the whole region of Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria.
The four formal demands are quoted as follows:
“1. Punishment of the commanding Chinese officer involved in the trouble-
“2. Dismissal, with punishment, of the other officers involved.
“3. Instructions to Chinese troops in Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria not to interfere in any way with Japanese troops or civilians, and to publish this fact broadly.
“4. Recognition of ‘special interests’ for Japan in Inner Mongolia and South Manchuria, comprising powers of police and administration, preference in loans, and in the selection of all foreign advisers, etc.”
Besides the four “demands” are four “concessions” which China is asked to grant to Japan without formal demand, as follows:
“1. The Chinese Army in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia to employ Japanese military advisers.
“2. Chinese schools and colleges to have Japanese military inspectors- This is not limited to any region in dispatches so far received.
“3. A formal apology in person from the Chinese Governor of Mukden to the Japanese Governor at Dairen and the Japanese Consul at Mukden for the Cheng-Chiatun trouble.
“4. Monetary compensation to the families of the Japanese killed, the amounts to be settled by later negotiation.”
Secretary Lansing refused to-night to comment on the dispatches or to outline what might be the attitude of the American Government. It is known, however, that steps will be taken immediately by the State Department to obtain detailed reports and learn the full significance of Japan’s act. American interests seem at first glance to be more deeply involved than in any event in the Far East since Japan’s famous ultimatum to China of May, 1915.
At most Japan had been expected not to demand the extension to inner Mongolia of rights already secured in South Manchuria. Instead, it is pointed out. she seeks more than she has ever before demanded in this district, and besides asking full reparation for the specific difficulty, she has made it the basis for demanding political rights which are interpreted in Peking as destroying China’s sovereignty in that whole enormous region.
Special attention is attracted here to the demand for a formal apology in person from the Chinese Governor in Mukden to the Japanese Governor at Dairen and the Japanese Consul at Mukden. This would require the Chinese official to humiliate his government by going into Japanese territory.
But it is the political articles which cause deepest anxiety to Washington facials. They were omitted entirely in the published demands. The recognition of “special rights” is open to the most extreme interpretation, and, it is feared, may cut directly across the American policy regarding the integrity of China. Also it has in it possibilities of violation of the open door policy and the making of the whole vast region involved a mere dependency of Japan.
Article 3 of the “demands” places Japanese soldiers and troops in this Chinese territory entirely above the control of Chinese soldiers, virtually annulling China’s sovereignty there. Japanese have already won the right to their own courts and in many places their own police.—N. Y. Times, 6/9.