In a memorandum dated October 12, the British and French governments replied to the second American note of May 12, 1916, protesting against delays and seizure of neutral mails. The
reply, while it called attention to measures taken to lessen the annoyance of detention and censorship, was in general a defense of the legality of the practices adopted.
The memorandum, 4000 words long, contains the following points:
1. Agreement as to general principles involved, i. e., post parcels recognized as being under the common rule of merchandise subject to the exercise of belligerent rights; private mails subject to inspection for contraband. Disagreement only as to methods.
2. Inspection of mails, involving opening of covers, cannot be made onship-board without confusion, delay, and losses; hence the practice of conveying mails to shore stations.
3. Mails examined on shore are accorded the same treatment as if examined at sea. Visits made to a vessel taken to port for examination of mails are in this respect on the same footing as visits on the high seas. But when vessels call " voluntarily " at allied ports, they place themselves under port laws, and it is legitimate for the authorities to make sure that such vessels carry nothing inimical to the national defense before granting clearance.
4. The enemy practice of enclosing hostile correspondence in apparently neutral mails, makes it necessary to examine mails to or from countries neighboring Germany as if mailed from or to Germany itself.
5. Convention XI of the Hague does not apply since it was not ratified by six of the belligerents. As for the previous practice of nations, "no general rule can easily be seen therein prohibiting belligerents from exercising surveillance, visitation, and, the case arising, seizure and confiscation, of mails."
6. The practice of Germany has been, not to examine mails, but to destroy them, together with ship and cargo. The practice of other nations in previous wars is cited in support of the Allies' position.
7. Shares, bonds, money orders, and other negotiable papers are admittedly merchandise and subject to the exercise of belligerent rights. But lists of money orders, also, mailed from the United States to Germany, are taken in Germany as the equivalent of the orders themselves, and hence must be so regarded by the Allies.
POINTS AT THE ISSUE
The most that can be said for the progress thus far made in the correspondence is that it has narrowed the subjects of dispute down to a pretty definite area—the question of what treatment shall be accorded to first-class mail carried on neutral ships and marked for a neutral destination, and the question of the contraband or non-contraband character of postal money-order lists—these latter being declared in the Anglo-French note to be virtual transmittals of money, while our own government asserts hat they are merely ordinary letters.—N. Y. Nation, 19/10.
In a note dated October 10, 1916, Great Britain replied to the United States "blacklist " protest of July 28. The reply denied that the British Government was seeking to impose disabilities or penalties on neutrals and defended the right of Great Britain to forbid its subjects to deal with any firms that trade with its enemies.
SUMMARY OF THE NOTE
1. The " black list is issued in accordance with the ' Trading with the Enemy (extension of powers) Act' of ions. This is a piece of purely municipal legislation and provides that His Majesty may by proclamation prohibit persons in the United Kingdom from trading with any persons
in foreign countries who might be specified in such proclamations or in subsequent orders His Majesty's Government neither purport nor claim to impose any disabilities or penalties upon neutral individuals or neutral commerce."
2. The legislation does not interfere with the rights or property of blacklisted firms. " The only disability they suffer is that British subjects are prohibited from giving them the support and assistance of British credit and British property."
3. The list includes, not only United States firms, but firms in other neutral countries and in Allied countries. Hence it is evident that it is not directed against neutral trade but is a part of general belligerent operations designed to weaken the enemy's resources.
4. Since the advantage of foreign trade is mutual, self-interest alone will prevent the British Government from extending the list further than necessary.
5. Circumstances justify the resort to this novel expedient, in that (a) German houses abroad have done all in their power to help the cause of Germany, and have in a large number of cases been used as part of an organization for the furtherance of German political and military ambitions; (b) German business houses abroad have been used for dissemination of political and social influence, for espionage, as bases of supply for German cruisers, and as organizers of attacks on munitions factories.
6. " Even though the military situation of the Allies has greatly improved, there is still a long and bitter struggle in front of them " which justifies every measure that can legitimately be used against the enemy. Inconvenience to neutrals is not to be compared to the suffering to
mankind by prolongation of the war.
7. The refusal to supply coal to ships carrying the goods of blacklisted firms is justifiable as a purely national Measure.
It is conceded here that the legal defense made by Viscount Grey is unassailable, but there are intimations that in the American response it will be urged on grounds of international comity that the operation of the British blacklist should not be enforced so as to prevent firms in the United States, covered by the blacklist, from dealing with other neutral firms. The note of Viscount Grey opens the door for further discussion in several respects and is interpreted in some quarters as embracing an invitation for this government to discuss the question of alleged flaws in the enforcement of American neutrality. It is possible that this government may ask the British Government to particularize in its allegation that the United States Government has failed to prevent certain alleged violations of neutrality. —N. Times, 16/11.
SCANDINAVIA AND THE BLOCKADE
LONDON, September 15.
Lord Robert Cecil, Minister of War Trade, to-day explained the recent orders of the British Government, refusing to allow Holland to accept further consignments of American goods and refusing letters of assurance that American shipments would reach Scandinavia. He said the orders applied only to certain prohibited articles and not to trade in general. Great Britain has forbidden the export of various articles to European neutrals on the ground that they have already received in the first seven months of this year more than an ordinary year's supply. Lord Robert said it was not logical to forbid such exports from Great Britain and to permit them from America and other neutral sources. Lord Robert explained that one neutral nation, taking normally 18,000 tons of coffee, in seven months of this year, already had imported 50,000 tons, so all further imports of coffee to that country would be regarded as likely to reach an enemy destination. The list of prohibited articles, he said, varied with different countries, according to what they already had imported, all allowances being made for imports formerly made to German ports. —N. Y. Times, 16/9.
IMPORTS TO SWEDEN
In a statement issued October 6, Sir Robert Cecil declared the willingness of his government to facilitate the import into neutral countries, including Sweden, of all goods needed for home requirements, allowing for the normal development of industries, provided that satisfactory guarantees are obtained either from the importers or a government body that no goods in any form will be re-exported to the enemy. It follows that the unrestricted import of goods which would release home products of similar nature for exportation cannot be agreed to by us. That for all practical purposes will be the same thing as importing goods through Sweden into Germany.
Lord Robert said the best plan for arranging imports was undoubtedly through agreements such as exist with Holland, Norway and Denmark, where all goods are controlled by a Central Association or by associations of traders interested in the various industries. —N. V. Times, 8/10.
SWEDISH EXPORTS STOPPED
COPENHAGEN, October 7.
According to official telegrams received, from Gothenburg this afternoon, the export of Swedish goods to England has been stopped since 2 o'clock Friday. The regulations adopted by the British Government provided that after October 1 all goods shipped from Sweden to England must be accompanied by certificates of their Swedish origin. Swedish exporters, having asked their government how they should conduct themselves in view of the conflict between the British and Swedish regulations, received an official reply forbidding them to fill out the new. bills of lading, and thereupon shipments immediately stopped. According to a telegram from Stockholm, the prohibition for the present affects only raw materials, but it is expected soon to cover provisions. —N. Y. Times, 8/10.
SUBMARINES IN NEUTRAL WATERS
In a memorandum dated August 31 and made public October 10, Secretary Lansing denied the request of the Entente that both war and merchant submarines be excluded from neutral waters. The reply declared that belligerents must take the responsibility of distinguishing between neutral and enemy submarines.
TEXT OF ENTENTE MEMORANDUM
In view of the development of submarine navigation and by reason of acts which in the present circumstances may be unfortunately expected from enemy submarines, the allied governments consider it necessary, in order not only to safeguard their belligerent rights and liberty of commercial navigation, but to avoid risks of dispute, to urge neutral governments to take effective measures, if they have not already done so, with a view to preventing belligerent submarine vessels, whatever the purpose to which they are put, from making use of neutral waters, roadsteads, and ports.
In the case of submarine vessels, the application of the principles of the law of nations is affected by special and novel conditions; first, by the fact that these vessels call navigate and remain at sea submerged, and can thus escape all control and observation; second, by the fact that it is impossible to identify them and establish their national character, whether neutral or belligerent, combatant or noncombatant, and to remove the capacity for harm inherent in the nature of such vessels. It may further be said that any place which provides a submarine warship far from its base with an opportunity for rest and replenishment of its supplies thereby furnishes such addition to its powers that the place becomes in fact, through the advantages which it gives, a base of naval operations.
In view of the state of affairs thus existing, the allied governments are of the opinion that submarine Vessels should be excluded from the benefit of the rules hitherto recognized by the law of nations regarding the admission of vessels of war or merchant 'Vessels into neutral waters, roadsteads, or ports, and their sojourn in them. Any belligerent submarine entering a. neutral port should be detained there.
The allied governments take this opportunity to point out to the neutral powers the grave danger incurred by neutral submarines in the navigation of regions frequented by belligerent submarines.
WASHINGTON, August 31, 1916.
The government of the United States has received the identic memoranda of the governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan in which neutral governments are exhorted "to take efficacious measures tending to prevent belligerent submarines, regardless of their use, to avail themselves of neutral water, roadsteads, and harbors." These governments point out the facility possessed by such craft to avoid supervision or surveillance or determination of their national character and their power "to do injury that is inherent in their very nature," as well as the "additional facilities " afforded by having at their disposal places where they can rest and replenish their supplies. Apparently on these grounds, the allied governments hold that "submarine vessels must be excluded from the benefit of the rules heretofore accepted under international law regarding the admission and sojourn of war and merchant vessels in neutral
waters, roadsteads, or harbors; any submarine of a belligerent that once enters a neutral harbor must be held there," and therefore the allied governments "warn neutral powers of the great danger to neutral sub marines attending the navigation of waters visited by the submarines of belligerents."
In reply the government of the United States must express its surprise that there appears to be an endeavor of the allied powers to determine he rule of action governing what they regard as a " novel situation "in respect to the use of submarines in time of war, and to enforce a compliance of that rule, at least in part, by warning neutral powers of the great danger to their submarines in waters that may be' visited by belligerent submarines. In the opinion of the government of the United States, the allied powers have not set forth any circumstance, nor is the government of the United States at present aware of any circumstances concerning the use of war or merchant submarines which would render the existing rules of international law inapplicable to them. In view of this fact, and of the notice and warning of the allied powers announced in their memoranda under acknowledgment, it is incumbent upon the government of the United States to notify the governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan that, so far as the treatment of either war or merchant submarines in American waters is concerned, the government of the United States reserves its liberty of action in all respects, and will treat such vessels as, in its opinion, becomes the action of a power which may be said to have taken the first steps toward establishing the principles of neutrality, and which for over a century has maintained those principles in the traditional spirit and with the high sense in which they were conceived.
In order, however, that there should be no misunderstanding as to the attitude of the United States, the government of the United States announces to the allied powers that it holds it to be the duty of belligerent powers to distinguish between submarines of neutral and belligerent nationality, and that responsibility for any conflict that may arise between belligerent warships and neutral submarines on account of the neglect of a belligerent to so distinguish between these classes of submarines must rest entirely upon the negligent power.
LONDON, October 22.
Replying to the Entente Allies' submarine note, the Dutch Government intimates that in consequence of the uncertainty of the status of submarines they will be treated as warships, and, in accordance with the Dutch neutrality proclamation, will not be allowed to enter or remain in Dutch waters except on well-defined conditions. The government, however, will not intern merchant submarines, because there is no principle of international law which would justify such a course.
—N. Y. Times, 22/10.
NORWAY RESTRICTS SUBMARINES
The Norwegian ordinance of October 13 with respect to submarines of belligerent powers forbids such vessels traversing Norwegian waters, except in cases of emergency, when they must remain upon the surface and fly the national flag. Mercantile submarines are to be allowed in Norwegian waters only in a surface position in full daylight and flying the national colors. Any submarine violating the ordinance will, according to its provisions be attacked by armed forces.—N. Y. Times, 22/10.
According to Christiania dispatches dated October 22, Germany protested against Norway's submarine ordinance, declaring it in conflict with Paragraph 13 of the Hague Convention and incompatible with strict neutrality.
BERLIN, November 13 (via London).
Although the Norwegian answer to the German note with respect to the submarine question has not yet been made public, the Lokalanzeiger learns that it is couched in a conciliatory, spirit even though it does not concretely offer enough to warrant its being called satisfactory. Verbal explanations, which accompanied the note, says the Lokalanzeiger, were such that it is not impossible that an understanding will be reached.
The paper points out anew, however, that the solution of the difficulty and the future relations between the two countries depend wholly on Norway and the further explanations it may choose to make, and not upon Germany, which "is watching developments with calmness." —N. Y. Times,14/11.
On September II the Philippine steamer Cebu was held up by a British destroyer within one and a half miles of Carabao Island, within Philippine, territorial waters. The object of the destroyer was to capture a German reservist who with other Germans had been using Manila as a headquarters for activities against British government in India. The German was not found on board.
On September 20 the British Government expressed regret for the incident, explaining that when the Cebu was boarded the land was hidden by fog.
GERMAN SUBMARINE POLICY
BERLIN, November is (via Sayville.)
Today Under Secretary of State Zimmermann not only confirmed the previous statement that the submarine status quo still exists unmodified, but issued the following important statement more clearly defining the German position:
"The German naval forces are not sinking neutral merchant ships per se. They are sinking as a defensive measure ammunition transports and other contraband shipments to our enemies that are calculated to lengthen the war. It is not strictly correct, therefore, to speak of 'submarine warfare' in this connection. We are conducting cruiser warfare, waged by means of submarines, acting in punctilious compliance with the rules of international law applying to cruiser warfare. Our position, therefore, both militarily and from the viewpoint of international law is irreproachable, and the propagandistic accusation and charge in connection with ships sunk, as agitated by the English press, are interesting and important only as indicating how hard England is being hit by our defensive submarine measures against England's hunger war and England's economic strangle hold on the neutral nations in question."—N. Y. Times, 16/11.
ACTIVITIES OF U-53
As a result of the sinking, on October 8, of three British and two neutral merchant vessels by the German submarine U-53, off Nantucket Lightship (see War Notes), Secretary Lansing directed an inquiry to the German Government.
"STEPHANO " STOPPED BY SOLID SHOT
The first warning received by the Red Cross Line steamship Stephano on Oct. 8 from U-53 was a solid shot which struck her on the port bow. This was the gist of an affidavit made yesterday by Capt. Clifton Smith at the British Consulate. He said the German submarine was sighted at 6 p.m., and at 6.05 a shot was fired by her which struck the Stephano under the forefoot on the port side, twisting the stem of the ship. At that time not a passenger had been removed from the steamship, and the captain was not aware that lie was in the hands of an enemy craft until the shell struck his ship.
His statement was corroborated by Hugh F. Graham, manager of The Register, published at Dobbs Ferry, N. Y., in a letter sent to the Red Cross Line office yesterday.—N. Y. Times, 12/10.
SUBMARINES VS, MERCHANT VESSELS
An article by E. W. Crecraft, N. Y. Times, October 15, contends that the defensive weakness of submarines should not deprive merchantmen of the right to arm for defense nor should it lead to modification of the rules of visit and search. The article is in part as follows:
"Why should the new international law compel a large ocean liner or even a freighter to stand idly by and be sent to the bottom of the sea by a small war craft which could easily be kept off by a small armament on board, when present international law gives merchant vessels the right to carry arms to resist illegal attack? We may ask, is it armament alone that renders the merchantman superior to the submarine? And are we to accept the full German contention that the mere presence of arms on the merchantman is, in view of the weakness of the submarine, an offensive armament? To these it must be replied that other things besides a small caliber gun combine to make merchantmen generally superior to submarines. The merchantman has an inherent superior strength in being able to rain the small craft. Why not say, therefore, that so long as merchantmen have prows that can ram they are superior to the submarine, that they are a menace to the exercise of the alleged right of the submarine to capture enemy merchantmen at sea, and that they are aggressively armed by their very structure? Certainly, no such absurd conclusion can occupy the mind of the most ardent enthusiast over the submarine.
"In accordance with the general principle of visit and search and the destruction of prizes, submarine activities such as were witnessed off Nantucket cannot be described as legal. The regular procedure in exercising the right of visit and search is to take the vessel into port. If we are to hold at this time that the U-53 obeyed the law of nations we must be prepared to hold also that Sunday's procedure will in the future be the regular practice of warships in dealing with passenger and freight vessels. It will be an exceptional occasion in future wars when a prize will be taken into port; it is likely also to be an exceptional case when passengers and non-combatant crews are saved."
A new Baralong case was submitted by the German Admiralty in its account (Nov. 4, 1916) of the loss a year preceding (Sept. 24, 1915) of the German U-41. According to the German statement, a British patrol, disguised as a merchantman and flying the United States flag, sank the submarine, which had hailed and approached her, and after ran down a boat containing a German lieutenant and a petty officer. The two survivors were later picked up, but, though wounded, they were left without medical attention till the following day. After considerable delay, due it is stated to fear lest news of the attack should be published, the German officer was transferred to Switzerland and submitted his report. The account is taken by German authorities to prove that the British have ordered that no submarine prisoners be taken.
LONDON, November 14.
The Admiralty has issued a further reply to the German charge regarding the treatment of survivors of the German submarine U-41, including the report of the commander of the British ship which sank the submarine, and affirms:
"It is directly, explicity, and completely untrue to allege that there exists, or even has existed, an Admiralty order that it is not necessary to rescue the survivors of the crews of German submarines."
According to the British Admiralty a British auxiliary flying a neutral flag approached a German submarine on September 24, engaged in sinking a British merchantman. When within range the auxiliary hoisted a white naval ensign and fired on and sank the submarine and then rescued the crew of the merchantman from their boats. When this was done, the auxiliary also rescued two of the submarine's crew, who had climbed into a drifting boat.—N. Y. Times, 13/11.
On October 28 the British freighter Marina, 5204 tons, Glasgow to Baltimore, was sunk by a German submarine 100 miles west of Cape Clear, Ireland. Heavy weather prevailed at the time of and after the sinking. Of 58 Americans on board, six were lost.
"MARINA " NOT WARNED
Consul Frost at Queenstown has obtained a joint affidavit from the Americans who reached Crookhaven and a similar document from American survivors at Bearhaven. The affidavits agree that the Marina was torpedoed without warning, that the first torpedo struck on the starboard side and the second hit the vessel 12 minutes later and was followed by a boiler explosion, the steamer sinking six minutes afterward. No Americans were killed by the boiler explosion. Those who lost their lives were drowned as the lifeboats were launched.
According to this information, a submarine which emerged after the second torpedo was fired was seen plainly by Americans on the Marina, hut did not communicate with the steamship or offer assistance to the small boats, which were in deadly peril from the rough sea. The affidavits of the Americans say that the Marina had a 4.7-inch gun mounted astern, but that it was not used, as the ship had no warning of the submarine attack and it was too late after the torpedo bit the vessel. The submarine did not shell the Marina. It is regarded here as probable that the American State Department will make still further inquiries with the object of definitely determining the status of the Marina. While it is said that she was under private charter when she was torpedoed, it appears that the vessel may have been engaged in Admiralty work not long before. —N. Y. Times, 2/11.
UNITED STATES TAKES ACTION
WASHINGTON, October, 31.
Under instructions from President Wilson, the State Department has cabled to the American Embassy in Berlin to make informal inquiries of the German Government concerning the sinking of the British freight steamer Marina, with a view to ascertaining what information Germany has on the subject.
Walter H. Page, the American Ambassador at London, has been instructed to obtain all the facts available with particular reference to the loss of American lives and whether the Marina was sunk without warning. —N. Y. Times, 1/11.
SINKING OF THE "ROWANMORE"
Mr. Frost, consul at Queenstown, Ireland, sent two cablegrams concerning the sinking of the Rowanmore. The first read: Furness freighter Rowanmore, bound from Baltimore for Liverpool with a mixed cargo, was attacked by a German submarine at 8.45 a. m. October 26, 140 miles west-southwest of Cape Clear. After so minutes' attempt to escape, the Rowanmore's steering gear was shot away. Master stopped and signaled he was abandoning ship. The submarine continued shelling her and shelled boats after the latter were clear. No casualties.
The second cablegram was as follows:
Submarine shelled Rowanmore and at 11.30 torpedoed her. Vessel did not sink until 2.40. Crew landed at Bantry at 10 a. m. of the 27th. There were seven Americans on board, of whom five are Filipinos. The other two, intelligent Americans, were George Murphy of 740 Jefferson Avenue, Brooklyn, and Albert Sessler of 42 Sharon Street, Boston. —N.Y. Times, 9/11.
The British Admiralty report, November 6, on the sinking of the Oriental liner Arabia reads as follows: The homeward-bound Peninsular and Oriental mail steamer Arabia was torpedoed without warning and sunk in the Mediterranean at about noon on November 6. The vessel had 437 passengers, including 169 women and children. All the passengers were saved by various vessels which were diverted to the scene of the disaster. Two engineers are missing and are believed to have been killed by the explosion. The remainder of the crew were saved.—N. Y. Times, 9/11.
"COLUMBIAN" HELD UP AND SUNK
PARIS, November, 12.
A wireless dispatch from Madrid says that it was a German submarine which sank the American steamship Columbian. According to this information, the Columbian encountered the submarine on November 6 during a violent tempest. The submarine compelled the Columbian to stop and lie to under surveillance until Nov. 8. When the storm subsided, the dispatch says, the submarine ordered the crew to abandon the ship and then sank her. The crew it is reported, afterward landed at Corunna, on the northwest coast of Spain.
The Columbian was an 8000-ton American steamship which left New York October 18, arrived in St. Nazaire, France, November 2, and left there November 3, for Genoa with a cargo of steel. —N. Y. Times, 13/11.
A dispatch from the American consulate in London, Nov. 7, read as follows:
"The Philippine steamer Lanao, Manila, Saigon to Havre, carrying rice, was stopped 30 miles off Cape St. Vincent, Portugal, by a German submarine on October 28. The Lanao was destroyed by a bomb after the crew were removed to the submarine, the submarine commander stating that the cargo was contraband, and lie was compelled to sink the vessel. The crew was transferred half an hour later to the Norwegian steamer Tromp and landed at Cardiff. No injuries, no casualties. The Lanao was unarmed and flying the American flag."
LONDON, November 7.
Lorin A. Lathrop, American Consul at Cardiff, has telegraphed to theConsulate here that the Lanao when sunk was still under Philippine registry and flying the American flag. Her transfer to the Norwegian flag was to have been made on her arrival in England. Captain Mainland has telegraphed from Cardiff the following signed statement:
"The Lanao sailed from Hongkong under the American flag, which flew day and night and was flying when sunk. I heard rumors of sale, but nothing certain. The submarine captain gave a receipt for the ship's papers as from an American ship. The legal status of the vessel was Philippine registry under American protection, which gave the right to fly the American flag."
KINGDOM OF POLAND PROCLAIMED
On November 5, Germany and Austria proclaimed the establishment of the Russian provinces of Poland as an independent kingdom, the actual setting up of the autonomous state to take place after the establishment of peace. The Austrian province of Galicia and the German province of Poland, it is understood, are not to be included in the new state.
AUSTRIAN PREMIER ASSASSINATED
The Austrian Premier, Count Karl Stuergkh, was assassinated in a restaurant in Vienna by Dr. Friedrich Adler, a publisher, on October 21. According to the confession of Dr. Adler the motive of the crime was political, the refusal of the Premier to convene Parliament. Stuergkh's successor, Dr. Ernst von Koerner, on Nov. r announced his cabinet, three of whom held office in the former ministry. — N. Y. Nation, 26/10.
The Zaimis government in Greece resigned September 12. After some delay, M. Kalogeropoulos, a supporter of Venizelos, formed on September 16, a new cabinet, pledged to "the most benevolent possible neutrality towards the Entente," but divided on the policy of Greek participation in the war. Failing of recognition by the Entente, this ministry was in turn forced to resign (October 4), and the premiership turned over to Prof. Spyridon P. Lambros (October 9). On October II all save three of the vessels of the Greek fleet were taken over by French naval authorities, and the remaining three disarmed. In the meantime, the Provisional government, established by Venizelos in Crete and Mitelyene, was transferred to Saloniki, and on October 12 issued a call to arms for the defense of Greek territory and in support of the Entente. This government was on October 16 officially recognized by the Entente Powers.
The further demands made upon King Constantine's government by the Entente include: (1) transfer of Greek troops from Thessaly (in the rear of the allied forces) to the Morean Peninsula; (2) surrender of munitions of war; (3) consent to recruiting for the Venizelist movement ; (4) Control of Piraeus fortifications and of the Pirreus-Larissa Railroad.
GREEK TRANSPORT TORPEDOED
The Greek ship Angelika, bound from Pirmus to Saloniki with 150 officers and men who were to join the Venizelist forces, was torpedoed by a German submarine on the evening of October 29. According to the captain's statement, no warning was given, and a Greek vessel approaching
to rescue survivors was warned off. About 50 persons were killed by the explosion. The attack was justified by the German legation at Athens on the ground that the transport was engaged in carrying reinforcements to the Allies at Saloniki.
CHINA AND JAPAN NEW JAPANESE CABINET
Dispatches from Tokyo, of October 4, announced that the Emperor had requested Lieut. General Count Terauchi to form a cabinet in succession to that of Marquis Okuma. The Emperor's choice of the new Premier marks the victory, for the time being, at least, of the reactionary bureaucratic party in its struggle with the more liberal parties, consolidated by the efforts of Marquis Okuma and Baron Kato, which favor a representative government. —N. Y. Nation, 12/10.
CHANGES IN FOREIGN POLICY
Count Terauchi's appointment as Premier was regarded with uneasiness yesterday by some students of Japanese affairs in this city. I-Te was spoken of as a ' swashbuckler" and "expansionist" on one hand, and on the other as a cautious man who was not likely to change Japan's foreign relations.
Baron Yoshiro Sakatani, delegate to the recent Economic Conference in Paris, who is at the Hotel Astor, would not be interviewed on the appointment yesterday. Baron Sakatani, in an interview in The Times last week, declared that the status of Japanese in the United States must be settled after the war, although he believed that there would be an amicable understanding between the two nations. Baron Sakatani's assertions, the change of ambassadors at Washington and Count Terauchi's succession to the Premiership, were regarded by some as steps toward a firmer policy of Japan toward the United States in regard to the "open door" in China aswell as the treatment of the Japanese in California.
Dr. T. Iyenaga, Director of the East and West News Bureau, said that Japan's foreign policy had been so well settled by the late Emperor that the change in premiers would probably have little effect on it.—N. Y. Times, 4/10.
JAPAN GIVES UP SOUTH SEA ISLANDS
Tokyo, October 14.
The Associated Press learns that Japan has agreed not to make a part of her demands in the peace conference which will follow the war the right to hold permanently the South Sea Islands which were wrested from Germany at the outbreak of the war. Several of these islands, which belong to the Caroline and Marianne groups, lie not far from the American island of Guam, the American terminus of the Pacific cable. It is under- stood the United States has informally expressed a desire that these islands should not become the permanent property of the Japanese Empire.
Inasmuch as they were captured through the joint operations of the British and Japanese fleets, it is understood the United States first took up the question with Great Britain and that a joint suggestion was made by Great Britain and the United States that Japan should not insist upon the permanent maintenance of the islands.—N. Y. Times, 10/11.
JAPANESE PRESSURE ON CHINA
PEKING, October 11.
Japan's insistence upon an immediate settlement of the demands growing out of the Cheng-chiatun incident is creating great uneasiness among Chinese officials.
The Associated Press correspondent is now able to give a paraphrase of the four demands and the four suggestions made by Japan, which is practically the text of Baron Hayashi's representations to the Foreign Office.
The demands are as follows:
(I) The commander of the 28th division of the Chinese Army in Manchuria is to be reprimanded.
(2) Officers responsible for the Cheng-chiatun incident are to be dismissed, and those in direct command are to be severely punished.
(3) Orders are to be issued to Chinese troops in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia that hereafter Chinese soldiers and officers are not allowed to act in such a way as to irritate and provoke Japanese troops and Japanese residents. Copies of these orders are to be posted at important centers.
(4) (a) The Chinese Government is to permit the stationing of Japanese police in interior Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia at such places as the Japanese Government may consider it necessary to station police for the protection and control of Japanese residents. (b) In Southern Manchuria Japanese are to be employed as police advisers.
The four suggestions, which Baron Hayashi has told the Chinese Government are not absolute demands, are as follows:
(I) In the principal military. divisions in Southern Manchuria and Eastern Inner Mongolia a certain number of Japanese officers are to be employed as military advisers.
(2) Japanese officers are to be employed as instructors in the Chinese military academy.
(3) The Military Governor at Mukden, Chang Tso-ling, shall apologize to the Japanese Governor General at Port Arthur and the Japanese Consul General at Mukden for the Cheng-chiatun incident.
(4) A suitable sum of money is to be given to the Japanese wounded and to the families of the Japanese who were killed. —Correspondence of The Associated Press, N. Y. Times, 15/11.
AMERICAN CONTRACTS IN CHINA
PEKING, October 14.
Japan and Russia entered protests today against concessions for railway and canal construction in China which have been granted to Americans. Russia's protest was against the construction by Americans of a railroad from Feng-Cheng, Shansi Province, to Lanchoy-Fu, in Kainsu Province, it being alleged that the Chinese minister in Petrograd promised orally 18 years ago that Russia should have the privilege of building railways in the vicinity of Mongolia.
Japan protested against the Chinese Government's agreement with American contractors for the reconstruction of 200 miles of the Grand Canal in Shantung. The Japanese claim by reason of their conquest of Shantung all rights heretofore held by Germany in that province.
Negotiations for American railway construction in China were concluded a fortnight ago and called for a $60,000,000 loan by the American International Corporation and the construction as soon as possible of 1500 miles of railway through the richest section of China by the Siems-Carey Company of St. Paul. An optional contract for the construction of an additional 1500 miles of railway later was contained in the agreement.
The loan was to be secured by the property in the road itself and not by concessions or government guarantees. The Chinese Government agreed to the appointment of an American engineer, who later was to act as the chief engineer of the road. George A. Kyle, a Great Northern Railway engineer, was recently appointed to the post and confirmed by China. The appointment of Americans as auditor and traffic manager was also agreed upon—N. Y. Times. 15/10.
'CONSTRUCTIVE" WAR IN MEXICO
The State Department, it was announced in dispatches from Washington of October 21, regards a "constructive" state of war as existing in Mexico, thus upholding the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General of the army that soldiers in Mexico may only be tried by military courts. —N.Y. Nation. 26/10.
DANISH WEST INDIES
Both Houses of the Danish Parliament passed the bill for a plebiscite on the sale of the Danish West Indies to the United States on September 30. It is believed the matter will be settled definitely by the end of November. The plebiscite also will include the Faroe Islands, but not Iceland and Greenland. Premier Zahle urged immediate action on the bill, in view of the fact that the United States Senate already had approved the treaty. Admiral Peary protests against our renunciation of our possible rights in Greenland, the largest island in the world with extensive fisheries, abundance of coal and rushing torrents, having potential power sufficient if
translated into electric energy to make Greenland "a powerhouse for the United States." It might be made valuable, too, strategically as a naval base. —Army and Navy Journal, 6/10.
ADJUDICATION OF NICARAGUAN CASE
WASHINGTON, November 12.
A prepared statement issued to-night on behalf of the American Peace Society, asserts that it is the duty of the United States Government to enter. into an agreement with one of the protesting Central American nations to. put the Nicaraguan treaty controversy before the Central American Court. of Justice at Cartago for consideration and adjustment.
The Nicaraguan Treaty controversy has grown out of the ratification this year of a new treaty between the United States and Nicaragua by. which Nicaragua, in consideration of the payment of $3,000,900 by this country has ceded to the United States the right to build an interoceanic canal across Nicaragua and also the right to establish a naval base on the Nicaraguan shores on the Gulf of Fonseca, on which several other Central. American nations also border.
The. governments of Salvador, Costa Rica, and Honduras have protested against the treaty. The Central American Court of Justice recently decided. that Nicaragua acted illegally in selling canal rights to the United States without consulting Costa Rica and in threatening the neutrality of Honduras by permitting a United States naval base to be established on the Gulf of Fonseca. The government of Nicaragua has refused to be bound by this decision. The statement issued by the American Peace Society asserts that " disruption threatens the Central American Union through our assertion of our technical freedom from the impositions of this decree."— N. Y. Times, 13/11.