UNITED STATES AND ENTENTE POWERS
On May 24 Secretary Lansing delivered to the British and the French Ambassadors a renewed protest against interference with United States mails.
The note asserts the principle that, while mails may be stopped in transit to or from a port that is effectively blockaded, "genuine correspondence" is in all circumstances inviolable; and no class of mail is subject to search for other purpose than the discovery of contraband. It is not subject to the "exercise of the rights of police supervision, visitation, and eventual seizure which belongs to belligerents as to ordinary cargoes." Contrary to these principles, Great Britain and France have censored and excised parts of correspondence, confiscated mail, and in some cases held mail indefinitely in port. The note reads in part:
"The arbitrary methods employed by the British and French Governments have resulted most disastrously to citizens of the United States. Important papers which can never be duplicated, or can be duplicated only with great difficulty, such as United States patents for inventions, rare documents, legal papers relating to the settlement of estates, powers of attorney, fire insurance claims, income tax returns, and similar matters, have been lost.
"Business opportunities are lost by failure to transmit promptly bids, specifications, and contracts. " The Standard Underground Cable Company of Pittsburgh, for example, sent by mail a tender and specifications for certain proposed electrical works to be constructed in Christiania; after several weeks of waiting the papers have failed to arrive. The American company was told that the bids could not be longer held open and the contract was awarded to a British competitor.
"Checks, drafts, money orders, securities, and similar property are lost or detained for weeks and months." Continuing, the note draws the following distinction between merchandise and mail:
"The government of the United States is inclined to the opinion that the class of mail matter which includes stocks, bonds, coupons, and similar securities is to be regarded as of the same nature as merchandise or other articles of property and subject to the same exercise of belligerent rights. Money orders, checks, drafts, notes, and other negotiable instruments which may pass as the equivalent of money are, it is considered, also to be classed as merchandise. Correspondence, including shipping documents, money order lists, and papers of that character, even though relating to "enemy supplies or exports," unless carried on the same ship as the property referred to, are, in the opinion of this government, to be regarded as 'genuine correspondence,' and entitled to unmolested passage."
ADMIRAL JELLICOE ON SEARCH AT SEA.—Included in the British memorandum of March 24 (see March-April Institute) is a report by Admiral Jellicoe on the difficulties of search at sea under modern conditions. His statement is supported by the French Ministry of Marine. The report reads:
“It is undoubtedly the case that the size of modern vessels is one of the factors which renders search at sea far more difficult than in the days of smaller vessels. So far as I know, it has never been contended that it is necessary to remove every package of a ship's cargo to establish the character and nature of her trace, etc., but it must be obvious that the larger the vessel and the greater the amount of cargo, the more difficult does examination at sea become, because more packages must be removed.
"This difficulty is much enhanced by the practice of concealing contraband in bales of hay and passengers' luggage, casks, etc., and this procedure. which has undoubtedly been carried out necessitates the actual removal of a good deal of cargo for examination in suspected cases. This removal cannot be carried out at sea, except in the very finest weather.
"Further, in a large ship, the greater bulk of the cargo renders it easier to conceal contraband, especially such valuable metals as nickel, quantities of which can easily be stowed in places other than the holds of a large ship. I entirely dispute the contention, therefore, advanced in the American note, that there is no difference between the search of a ship of 1000 tons and one of 20,000 tons. I am sure that the fallacy of the statement must be apparent to anyone who has ever carried out such a search at sea.
"There are other facts, however, which render it necessary to bring vessels into port for search. The most important is the manner in which those in command of German submarines, in entire disregard of international law and of their own prize regulations, attack and sink merchant vessels on the high seas, neutral as well as British, without visiting the ship and therefore without any examination of the cargo. This procedure renders it unsafe for a neutral vessel which is being examined by officers from a British ship to remain stopped on the high seas, and it is therefore in the interests of the neutrals themselves that the examination should be conducted in port.
"The German practice of misusing United States passports in order to procure a safe conduct for military persons and agents of enemy nationality makes it necessary to examine closely all suspect persons, and to do this effectively necessitates bringing the ship into harbor. "The difference between the British and the German procedure is that we have acted in the way which causes the least discomfort of neutrals. Instead of sinking neutral ships engaged in trade with the enemy, as the Germans have done in so many cases in direct contravention of Article 113 of their own Naval Prize. Regulations, 1909, in which it is laid down that the commander is only justified in destroying a neutral ship which has been captured if—
“ (a) She is liable to condemnation, and
“ (b) The bringing in might expose the warship to danger or imperil the success of the operations in which she is engaged at the time —
we examine them, giving as little inconvenience as modern naval conditions will allow, sending them into port only where this becomes necessary.
"It must be remembered, however, that it is not the Allies alone who send a percentage of neutral vessels into port for examination, for it is common knowledge that German naval vessels, as stated in paragraph 19 of the American note, 'seize and bring into German ports neutral vessels bound for Scandinavian and Danish ports.'
“As cases in point, the interception by the Germans of the American oil-tankers Llama and Platuria in August last may be mentioned. Both were bound to America from Sweden and were taken into Swinenninde for examination."
The Conference of the Entente Allies on economic policy, which concluded its work in Paris on June 17, has resulted in a comprehensive program for trade cooperation both during and after the war.
According to the report issued to the press, the following resolutions were adopted:
"A. Measures for Duration of War—Unified regulations forbidding nationals of the Allied Powers to trade with inhabitants of enemy countries or with enemy subjects wherever resident, or with commercial houses controlled by enemy subjects or wherever resident, or with commercial houses controlled by enemy subjects or under enemy influence—prohibition of all imports from an enemy country.
"B. Measures for Period of Reconstruction—Special privileges to countries that have suffered from destruction and spoliation, to enable them to renew raw materials, machinery, and merchant marine—preference to allied countries during the period of reconstruction—measures 'to pre- vent the exercise in their territories by enemy subjects of certain industries or professions of interest to the national defence or economic independence.' "C. Permanent Measures—Independence of enemy countries as regards raw material and manufactured articles essential to the normal develop- ment of economic activity—independence in financial, commercial, and maritime organization—subsidized scientific and technical researches— preferential tariffs, and provisions to present 'dumping' of enemy products."
"C. Permanent Measures—Independence of enemy countries as regards raw material and manufactured articles essential to the normal development of economic activity—independence in financial, commercial, and maritime organization—subsidized scientific and technical researches— preferential tariffs, and provisions to present 'dumping' of enemy products."
CONTROL OF INDUSTRY AND WAR.—The control of various industries in the Allied countries necessary to the waging of war on a large scale, pivotal industries, as Mr. Chamberlain called them the other day, was, as a matter of German policy and a corollary of the principle of "peaceful penetration." very largely captured by the Germans before the war. Where we have gradually awakened to the fact that the control of the Empire's base metals was largely in German hands, and that the supplies of sugar consumed in this country were mostly grown in enemy territory, Russia has suddenly found herself confronted by an arduous economic dependence of a much more far-reaching kind. Guns, shrapnel, motorcars, locomotives, articles of clothing, medicines, explosives: a whole series of vital commodities were, scarcely, if at all, produced in the country, and had to be imported when war broke out after considerable delays and at enormous expense. M. Jules Gay, a Belgian merchant of Odessa, in the course of a most searching examination of the case for an Anglo-Russian rapprochement, quite plainly sees that Russia, "either through voluntary agreements or by force, must in self-defense exert every effort to destroy German influence on her domestic economic life." Not only has Russian economic policy permitted the German control of Russian industrial enterprises, but it, in conjunction with the protective system of Germany, has actually fostered "big agriculture" in Germany, and so guaranteed Germany her own grain in war time and permitted her to prolong her present struggle.—London Times, 27/5.
DECLARATION OF LONDON ABANDONED
LONDON, July 8
In accordance with the recent decision of the British Government to dis- continue the partial enforcement of the Declaration of London, an Orderin-Council was published to-day under which all orders made under the Declaration of London since the beginning of the war are withdrawn. The new order declares it to be the intention of Great Britain and her allies to exercise their belligerent rights at sea in strict accordance with the law of nations. On account of the changed conditions of commerce and the diversity of practice, doubts might arise in certain matters as to the rules which the Allies might regard as in conformity with the law of nations, and it is ordered that the following provisions be observed:
"First—The hostile destination required for the condemnation of contraband articles shall be presumed to exist until the contrary is shown if the goods are consigned to or for an enemy authority or agent of an enemy state, or to or for a person in the territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or to or for a person who during the present hostilities has forwarded contraband goods to an enemy authority or agent of an enemy state, or to or for a person in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or if the goods are consigned to order,' or if the ship's papers do not show who is the real consignee of the goods.
"Second—The principle of continuous voyage or ultimate destination shall be applicable both in cases of contraband and blockade.
"Third—A neutral vessel carrying contraband with papers indicating a neutral destination which, notwithstanding the destination shown on the papers, proceeds to an enemy port, shall be liable to capture and condemnation if she is encountered before the end of her next voyage."
“Fourth—A vessel carrying contraband shall be liable to capture and condemnation if the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo."
PARIS, July 8.
The French Government, following the example of Great Britain, has abandoned the Declaration of London as an interpretation of maritime international law. A decree to that effect appears in this morning's official journal.
A memorandum accompanying the decree says that the rules of the London Declaration were adopted by the Entente Allies at the beginning of the war as being the most expedient, but that experience has shown that they did not give the results expected, either in securing to belligerents a full exercise of rights or affording adequate guarantees to neutrals. Consequently, the memorandum continues, circumstances obliged the Allies to modify the rules of the Declaration. But these successive modifications lead to false interpretations of the Allies' motives, therefore, they decided it was better to return to the original rules of international law as generally accepted.
In so doing, the memorandum concludes, the Allies declare solemnly they will continue to observe the principles rigidly, respecting lives and property of neutrals and being ready to make compensation for any unjustifiable damage caused to bona fide merchants. —N. Y. Times, 7/8.
ITALY
NEW ITALIAN CABINET. —On June to the Salandra Ministry in Italy was defeated in Parliament by a vote of 197 to 158. The fall of the Salandra Cabinet, while hastened by the temporary success of the Austrian offensive, is attributed primarily to the failure of the government to keep in touch with the press and the leaders of opinion in the country, and to a general desire for a cabinet on a broader national basis representative of all parties. Most of those opposed to the ministry have been from the first strongly in favor of Italy's participation in the war.
The personnel of the new Italian Cabinet formed by Paolo Boselli was announced in dispatches of June 17. Baron Sonnino, of Signor Salandra's Cabinet, remains as Foreign Minister, the rest of the cabinet being made up of Radicals, Democrats, and Conservatives, and including two Socialists, one Republican, one Catholic, and one follower of ex-Premier Giolitti. — N. Y. Nation, 22/6.
NEUTRAL EUROPEAN POWERS
SWEDEN REMAINS NEUTRAL. —On May 17, Mr. Wallenberg, Foreign Minister of Sweden, speaking for the government, reaffirmed the declarations of neutrality previously proclaimed. Press dispatches announce that Russia and her present allies have reassured Sweden regarding the clause in the Treaty of Paris of 1855, forbidding permanent fortifications on the Aland Islands. This clause was not reaffirmed by Russia during the Baltic negotiations in 1907. The Aland Islands command the Gulf of Bothnia and the entrance to the Gulf of Finland and are but six hours' sail from Stockholm. At the outbreak of the war they were fortified by Russia and resisted a German naval raid on August 30, 1914. They offer an excellent base for Russian and British submarines and are a menace to German shipping and naval operations in the northern Baltic. The Activists, or pro-German war party in Sweden, have attempted to use the Russian fortification of the islands and the British blockade as an argument for throwing Sweden into the war on the side of the Central Powers. Ever since the loss of Finland Sweden has been concerned for the protection of her eastern frontier against Russia.
GREECE YIELDS TO WESTERN ALLIES.—On June 9, France and Great Britain brought naval pressure to bear on Greece, as a result of her surrender to Bulgaria of Greek territory in Macedonia, and alleged disregard of the Greek constitution by the government. The Serres-Drama-Kavak zone, taken by Bulgaria, is said to be of especial importance as the source of the best " Turkish " tobacco. Greece received the territory by the Treaty of Bucharest.
The naval measures taken by the Western Allies consisted of an embargo on Greek ships in French and British ports, control of the port of Soloniki by French naval officers, and a virtual blockade of Greece. According to a joint note presented to the Greek Government on June 21, the demands of the Allies were as follows:
"1. Real and complete demobilization of the Greek Army, which shall revert as speedily as possible to a peace footing.
"2. Immediate substitution for the existing ministry of a business cabinet devoid of any political prejudice and presenting all the necessary guarantees for the application of that benevolent neutrality which Greece is pledged to observe towards the Allied Powers and for the honesty of a fresh appeal to the electors.
"3. Immediate dissolution of the Chamber of Deputies followed by fresh elections within the time limits provided by the constitution, and as soon as general demobilization will have restored the electoral body to its normal condition.
"4. Dismissal, in agreement with the Allied Powers, of certain police officials’ whole attitude, influenced by foreign guidance, has facilitated the perpetration of notorious assaults upon peaceable citizens and the insults which have been levelled at the Allied Legations and their members."
On June 21 Greece yielded to these demands. The Skouloudis Cabinet resigned, and a new cabinet was formed under M. Zaimis. The new cabinet is regarded as temporary in character, pending the results of the election called for August 7. It is anticipated that M. Venizelos will then return to power. An order for the complete demobilization of the Greek Army was signed by King Constantine on June 27.
AUSTRIA
"PETROLITE " CONTROVERSY RENEWED. —The controversy between the United States and the Austro-Hungarian Government over the attack on the American steamer Petrolite by an Austrian submarine was revived and. brought to a sharp issue on June 28, when Secretary Lansing sent instructions by cable to Ambassador Penfield at Vienna to "request that an apology be made, that the commander of the submarine be punished and that reparation be made for the injuries sustained by the payment of a suitable indemnity." Secretary Lansing's note further described the attack on the Petrolite as "a deliberate insult to the flag of the United States and an invasion of the rights of American citizens." The note contains detailed testimony from the captain and crew of the Petrolite and the results of examinations of the vessel made by the Navy Department. —Army and Navy Journal, 1/7.
UNITED STATES AND MEXICO
In a note to the United States delivered May 22, Mexico demanded "an immediate withdrawal of American troops" from Mexico territory.
The note, I2,000 words in length, reviews previous negotiations, asserts that the entry of United States troops into Mexico after both the Columbus and the Glen Springs raids was without the consent of the Mexican Government, and points out that by the admission of the United States Government the Pershing force has accomplished its work and should therefore withdraw.
WARNING TO PERSHING.—General Jacinto Trevino, commanding the Carranza Army of the north, on June 16 advised General J. J. Pershing, American expeditionary commander, that any movement of American troops from their present line to the south, east, or west would be considered a hostile act and a signal to commence warfare. General Trevino acted upon specific instructions from Carranza.—N. Y. Times, 17/6.
MOBILIZATION OF U. S. MILITIA.—On June 18 the United States War Department issued a general order for the mobilization of the National Guard, and later moved a part of these troops to the Mexican border.
On June 20 Secretary Lansing replied to the Mexican Note of May 22, refusing to withdraw United States troops from Mexico, stating that the troops had crossed into Mexico solely for the protection of the border, and that the Carranza government had shown neither ability nor willingness to undertake the obligation of hunting down Mexican raiders.
The note reviews at length the series of raids on United States territory and outrages on United States citizens. It brings evidence to show that Carranza adherents have taken part i these disturbances and points out that the 'agreement between Generals Scott. Funston. and Obregon signed May 2 and providing that American troops be gradually withdrawn was not ratified by General Carranza. Later raids and the inactivity of Carranza forces have made such withdrawal unwise. The note closes as follows: “If, on the contrary, the de facto government is pleased to ignore this obligation and to believe that 'in case of a refusal to retire these troops there is no further recourse than to defend its territory by an appeal to arms, the government of the United States would surely be lacking in sincerity and friendship if it did not frankly impress upon the de facto government that the execution of this threat will lead to the gravest consequences."
PAN-AMERICAN NOTE. —A note from Secretary Lansing to the diplomatic representatives of South and Central American nations, delivered June 22, explained that the object of the United States Government in retaining troops in Mexico was not intervention, but defense of United States territory.
CARRIZAL ATTACK. —The gravity of the Mexican situation was increased by an attack at Carrizal on June 20 on two troops of United States cavalry. First reports of the engagement came from Mexican sources only, which described the attack as having been provoked by the American troopers. Later accounts from American stragglers who made their way back to their own lines made it appear that Carranzista forces of General Trevino's command had treacherously attacked the two troops under pretence of a parley. It was not until Sunday that an authoritative report of the engage- ment was received, written by Captain Morey, commander of one of the troops, while hiding wounded after the action. Even in the light of this dispatch the precise situation is not quite clear, but it appears that Captain Boyd, the commander of the two troops, who was killed, requested permis- sion to pass through the town of Carrizal, Which was refused. A conference with the Carranzista commander was arranged and Captain Boyd, fearing an ambush, formed his men for attack. At this point the report Contains the rather cryptic phrase, "He (Captain Boyd) was under the impression that the Mexicans would run as soon as we fired." At any rate it was the Mexicans who first opened fire. Thirteen United States troopers were killed and 57 made prisoners. So far from disavowing this incident, the de facto government, through Senor Arredondo, on Saturday of last week expressly accepted responsibility for it and justified the action of the Carranzista commander. —N. Y. Nation, 29/6
RETURN OF CARRIZAL CAPTIVES. —On June 25 Secretary Lansing dispatched a short note demanding the surrender of prisoners captured at Carrizal, and an "early statement" from the Mexican Government regarding its course of action, to be made "through the usual diplomatic channels and not through subordinate military commanders." On June 29 orders for the surrender of the prisoners were issued by the Carranza Government.
A conciliatory reply from General Carranza to the United States notes of June 20 and June 25 was received on July 4.
The substance of the note is that " the withdrawal of American troops, on one hand, and the protection of the frontier on the other, are the two essential problems the solution of which must be the directing object of the effort of both governments." The note refers to Latin-American offers of mediation but expresses the belief that "the same results may be obtained by direct negotiations." The note is conciliatory in tone, in contrast to the Aguilar Memorandum issued in Mexico City when the American note of June 20 was made public.
Conferences Proposed.—Replying to the Mexican note of July 4, Secretary Lansing on July 7 addressed a note to the Mexican Government proposing an immediate exchange of views "as to a practical plan to remove finally and prevent a recurrence of the difficulties which has been the source of the controversy."
PEACE IN SANTO DOMINGO
SANTO DOMINGO CITY, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC. July 5.
Rear Admiral William B. Caperton has effected a peace agreement between' the provision government and General Desiderio Arias, leader of the revolution, who was directly responsible for the overthrow of President Juan Isidor Jiminez two months ago.
General Arias had the alternative of disarming his troops or of fighting the United States. He chose the former. Two thousand American marines and bluejackets are now on Dominican soil and Rear Admiral Caperton, in command of United States naval vessels in Dominican waters, gave General Arias to understand that he must surrender or fight. He demanded unconditional and immediate disarmament.
The best-informed persons here believe that the stand taken by Rear Admiral Caperton will definitely end all revolutionary disturbances. They see in it an American protectorate, which will provide for a financial advisor for the Dominican Republic, and that the administration of affairs here will be along lines similar to those which were brought about when the United States took Hayti under its protection.—N. Y. Herald, 7/6.
DEATH OF YUAN SHIH-KAL—On June 6 occurred the death of Yuan Shihkai, president of the Chinese Republic. He is succeeded by the vice-president, Li Yuan-hung. It is anticipated that the change of power will unite north and south and bring peace to China.
"Li Yuan-hung is 52 years old. He served on a cruiser during the Chino-Japanese War and later entered the army, holding several commands and spending two years in Japan for the study of fortifications. On the outbreak of the revolution at Wuchang he was coerced into accepting command of the revolutionary forces, whose operations he directed. He was mainly instrumental in arranging for the Shanghai peace conference, and after the abdication of the Manchus was elected vice-president of the republic and appointed chief of the general staff. He was made a general, and in October of 1913 Was re-elected vice-president."—N. Y. Times, 7/6.
RUSSO-JAPANESE ENTENTE.—A Russo-Japanese Convention was signed at Petrograd on July 3. The terms, as reported in the Japanese press, are as follows:
"1. Russia shall cede to Japan that section of the Manchurian railway between Changchun and a certain point near Harbin. This will afford Japan's South Manchuria Railway an easier access to the Russian metropolis in Manchuria.
"2. Japan shall supply Russia with arms and ammunition as long as the war in Europe lasts.
"3. Russia shall accord liberal treatment to the Japanese residing and engaged in business in eastern Siberia and north Saghalien, as well as in the railway zone of north Manchuria.
"4. Russia shall throw open to international commerce the harbor of Vladivostok and shall not increase the armament of the port to such an extent as would cause apprehension on the part of Japan.
"5. Russia and Japan shall respect each other's interests in Manchuria and Mongolia. Should disturbance arise in the Russian sphere of influence in these territories while Russia is engaged in the war against Germany and Austria, Japan shall, upon Russia's request, undertake to pacify the country.
"6. In case Japan is obliged to take necessary measures to preserve the peace and open-door in China, Russia shall not hinder the execution of such measures. Should a third power or powers obstruct such measures, Russia shall, upon Japan's request, take common action with Japan for the removal of such obstruction."
The consensus of opinion is that the cardinal point of the agreement is the transfer to Japan of some too miles of the Changchun-Harbin branch of the Manchurian Railway of Russia. At the peace-conference of Portsmouth, Japan strove to secure the whole line from Port Arthur to Harbin, but Russia ceded only that section of the line between Port Arthur and Changchun. This proved a great handicap to the management of the South Manchuria Railway, and Japan has been coveting the remainder of the line up to Harbin.
The publication of the new pact with Russia is being deferred to secure agreement with England. According to a statement by Count Okuma:
"The fundamental principle of the new treaty with Russia is the same as that embodied in the Anglo-Japanese treaty of alliance, namely, the preservation of the peace of the Far East and the maintenance of the integrity of China.
"It is interesting to note that the three Japanese warships, Sagami, Tango, and Soya, originally captured from Russia in the war of 1904-5, have recently been sold to the Russian Navy. They were delivered to the Russian naval authorities at Vladivostok on April 3.—Literary Digest, 24/6.