allowed to proceed, and whether her cargo or any part of it must be discharged and put into the prize court. Realizing that the ordinary methods of interdepartmental correspondence might cause delays which could be obviated by another method of procedure, they established several months ago a special committee, on which all the departments concerned are represented. This committee sits daily, and is provided with a special clerical staff. As soon as a ship reaches port full particulars are telegraphed to London, and the case is dealt with at the next meeting of the committee, immediate steps being taken to carry out the action decided upon. By the adoption of this procedure it has been found possible to reduce to a minimum the delays to which neutral shipping is exposed by the exercise of belligerent rights, and by the necessity, imposed by modern conditions, of examining with care the destination of contraband articles. Particular attention is directed in your excellency's note to the policy we are pursuing with regard to conditional contraband, especially foodstuffs, and it is there stated that a number of American cargoes have been seized without, so far as your excellency's Government are informed, our being in possession of facts which warranted a reasonable belief that the shipments had in reality a belligerent destination, and in spite of the presumption of innocent use due to their being destined to neutral territory. The note does not specify any particular seizures as those which formed the basis of this complaint, and I am therefore not aware whether the passage refers to cargoes which were detained before or since the order in council of the 29th of October was issued.

Your excellency will no doubt remember that soon after the outbreak of war an order of His Majesty in council was issued under which no distinction was drawn in the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage between absolute contraband and conditional contraband, and which also imposed upon the neutral owner of contraband somewhat drastic conditions as to the burden of proof of the guilt or innocence of the shipment.

The principle that the burden of proof should always be imposed upon the captor has usually been admitted as a theory. In practice, however, it has almost always been otherwise, and any student of the prize courts' decisions of the past or even of modern wars will find that goods seldom escape condemnation unless their owner was in a position to prove that their destination was innocent. An attempt was made some few years ago, in the unratified declaration of London, to formulate some definite rules upon this subject, but time alone can show whether the rules there laid down will stand the test of modern warfare.

The rules which His Majesty's Government published in the order in council of the 20th August, 1914, were criticized by the United States Government as contrary to the generally recognized principles of international law, and as inflicting unnecessary hardship upon neutral commerce, and your excellency will remember the prolonged discussion which took place between us through the month of October with a view to finding some new formulæ which should enable us to restrict supplies to the enemy forces, and to prevent the supply to the enemy of materials essential for the making of munitions of war, while inflicting the minimum of injury and interference with neutral

commerce. It was with this object that the order in council of the 29th October was issued, under the provisions of which a far greater measure of immunity is conferred upon neutral commerce. In that order the principle of noninterference with conditional contraband on its way to a neutral port is in large measure admitted; only in three cases is the right to seize maintained, and in all those cases the opportunity is given to the claimants of the goods to establish their innocence.

Two of those cases are where the ship's papers afford no information as to the person for whom the goods are intended. It is only reasonable that a belligerent should be entitled to regard as suspicious cases where the shippers of the goods do not choose to disclose the name of the individual who is to receive them. The third case is that of goods addressed to a person in the enemy territory. In the peculiar circumstances of the present struggle, where the forces of the enemy comprise so large a proportion of the population, and where there is so little evidence of shipments on private as distinguished from Government account, it is most reasonable that the burden of proof should rest upon the claimant.

The most difficult questions in connection with conditional contraband arise with reference to the shipment of foodstuffs. No country has maintained more stoutly than Great Britain in modern times the principle that a belligerent should abstain from interference with the foodstuffs intended for the civil population. The circumstances of the present struggle are causing His Majesty's Government some anxiety as to whether the existing rules with regard to conditional contraband, framed as they were with the object of protecting so far as possible the supplies which were intended for the civil population, are effective for the purpose or suitable to the conditions present. The principle which I have indicated above is one which His Majesty's Government have constantly had to uphold against the opposition of continental powers. In the absence of some certainty that the rule would be respected by both parties to this conflict, we feel great doubt whether it should be regarded as an established principle of international law.

Your excellency will, no doubt, remember that in 1885, at the time when His Majesty's Government were discussing with the French Government this question of the right to declare foodstuffs not intended for the military forces to be contraband, and when public attention had been drawn to the matter, the Kiel Chamber of Commerce applied to the German Government for a statement of the latter's views on the subject. Prince Bismarck's answer was as follows:

"In answer to their representation of the 1st instant, I reply to the chamber of commerce that any disadvantage our commercial and carrying interests may suffer by the treatment of rice as contraband of war does not justify our opposing a measure which it has been thought fit to take in carrying on a foreign war. Every war is a calamity, which entails evil consequences not only on the combatants. but also on neutrals. These evils may easily be increased by the interference of a neutral power with the way in which a third carries on the war, to the disadvantage of the subjects of the interfering power, and by this means German commerce might be weighed with

far heavier losses than a transitory prohibition of the rice trade in Chinese waters. The measure in question has for its object the shortening of the war by increasing the difficulties of the enemy and is a justifiable step in war if impartially enforced against all neutral ships."

His Majesty's Government are disposed to think that the same view is still maintained by the German Government.

Another circumstance which is now coming to light is that an elaborate machinery has been organized by the enemy for the supply of foodstuffs for the use of the Germany Army from overseas. Under these circumstances it would be absurd to give any definite pledge that in cases where the supplies can be proved to be for the use of the enemy forces they should be given complete immunity by the simple expedient of dispatching them to an agent in a neutral port.

The reason for drawing a distinction between foodstuffs intended for the civil population and those for the armed forces or enemy Government disappears when the distinction between the civil population and the armed forces itself disappears.

In any country in which there exists such a tremendous organization for war as now obtains in Germany there is no clear division between those whom the Government is responsible for feeding and those whom it is not. Experience shows that the power to requisition will be used to the fullest extent in order to make sure that the wants of the military are supplied, and however much goods may be imported for civil use it is by the military that they will be consumed if military exigencies require it, especially now that the German Government have taken control of all the foodstuffs in the country.

I do not wish to overburden this note with statistics, but in proof of my statement as to the unprecedented extent to which supplies are reaching neutral ports I should like to instance the figures of the exports of certain meat products to Denmark during the months of September and October. Denmark is a country which in normal times imports a certain quantity of such products, but exports still more. In 1913, during the above two months, the United States exports of lard to Denmark was nil, as compared with 22,652,598 pounds in the same two months of 1914. The corresponding figures with regard to bacon were: 1913, nil; 1914, 1,022,195 pounds; canned beef, 1913, nil; 1914, 151,200 pounds; pickled and cured beef, 1913, 42,901 pounds; 1914, 156 143 pounds; pickled pork, 1913, nil; 1914, 812,872 pounds.

In the same two months the United States exported to Denmark 280,176 gallons of mineral lubricating oil in 1914, as compared with 179,252 in 1913; to Norway, 335,468 gallons in 1914, as against 151,179 gallons in 1913; to Sweden, 896,193 gallons in 1914, as against 385,476 gallons in 1913.

I have already mentioned the framing of the order in council of the 20th October, and the transmission to your excellency of particulars of ships and cargoes seized as instances of the efforts which we have made throughout the course of this war to meet all reasonable complaints made on behalf of American citizens, and in my note of the 7th January I alluded to the decision of our prize

court in the case of the Miramichi as evidencing the liberal principles adopted toward neutral commerce.

I should also like to refer to the steps which we took at the beginning of the war to insure the speedy release of cargo claimed by neutrals on board enemy ships which were captured or detained at the outbreak of war. Under our prize-court rules release of such goods can be obtained without the necessity of entering a claim in the prize court if the documents of title are produced to the officer representing His Majesty's Government and the title to the goods is established to his satisfaction. It was shortly found, however, that this procedure did not provide for the case where the available evidence was so scanty that the officer representing the Crown was not justified in consenting to a release. In order, therefore, to ameliorate the situation we established a special committee, with full powers to authorize the release of goods without insisting on full evidence of title being produced. This committee dealt with the utmost expedition with a large number of claims. In the great majority of cases the goods claimed were released at once. In addition to the cases dealt with by this committee a very large amount of cargo was released at once by the procurator general on production of documents. Claimants therefore obtained their goods without the necessity of applying to the prize court and of incurring the expense involved in retaining lawyers and without the risk, which was in some cases a considerable one, of the goods being eventually held to be enemy property and condemned. We have reason to know that our action in this matter was highly appreciated by many American citizens.

Another instance of the efforts which His Majesty's Government have made to deal as leniently as possible with neutral interests may be found in the policy which we have followed with regard to the transfer to a neutral flag of enemy ships belonging to companies which were incorporated in the enemy country, but all of whose shareholders were neutral. The rules applied by the British and by the American prize courts have always treated the flag as conclusive in favor of the captors in spite of neutral proprietary interests. (See the case of the Pedro, 175 U. S., 354.) In several cases, however, we have consented to waive our belligerent rights to treat as enemy vessels ships belonging to companies incorporated in Germany which were subsidiary to and owned by American corporations. The only condition which we have imposed is that these vessels should take no further part in trade with the enemy country.

I have given these indications of the policy which we have followed, because I can not help feeling that if the facts were more fully known as to the efforts which we have made to avoid inflicting any avoidable injury on neutral interests many of the complaints which have been received by the administration in Washington, and which led to the protest which your excellency handed to me on the 29th December, would never have been made. My hope is that when the facts which I have set out above are realized, and when it is seen that our naval operations have not diminished American trade with neutral countries, and that the lines on which we have acted are consistent with the fundamental principles of international law, it will be apparent to the Government and people of the United States that His Majesty's Government have hitherto endeavored to exercise their

84610°-H. Doc. 2111, 64-2, pt 2—6

belligerent rights with every possible consideration for the interests of neutrals.

It will still be our endeavor to avoid injury and loss to neutrals, but the announcement by the German Government of their intention to sink merchant vessels and their cargoes without verification of their nationality or character and without making any provision for the safety of noncombatant crews or giving them a chance of saving their lives has made it necessary for His Majesty's Government to consider what measures they should adopt to protect their interests. It is impossible for one belligerent to depart from rules and precedents and for the other to remain bound by them.

I have the honor, etc.,

E. GREY.

Britain's change of lists of contraband so as to embrace most of the sea-borne commerce, and her insistence of the exercise of her prizecourt proceedings encompassed almost the entire neutral trade in the early part of the war as indicated by the following lists of vessels seized and detained by her order:

The first list includes the cases of 155 vessels brought into British ports or otherwise detained for examination. Of these, 40 were forced to discharge their cargoes, which were held for prize-court proceedings. Thirty more were subjected to protracted detention at great loss. One American vessel carrying oil to Copenhagen was run aground by the English prize crew aboard her off the coast of Scotland.

It will be noted that this list does not include cases like that of the Wilhelmina, which, when seized by the British, was bound for Hamburg with cargo of foodstuffs, and the Dacia, which was seized by the French Navy under British instructions.

Nor does this list include the vessels, 273 in number, recorded by the Government of the United States in an appendix to its note of October 21 as having been detained in the port of Kirkwall alone between March 11 and June 17. The Government list is appended, bringing this merely illustrative record of ships detained up to a total of 428.

From March 11, 1915, to June 16, 1915, 271 vessels carrying American cargoes were compelled to stop at Kirkwall, England.

A PARTIAL LIST OF SHIPS DETAINED.

S. S. Kumeric (British): Sailed from Galveston July 17, 1914 (via Newport News July 24), for Bremen. Cargo, 49,000 bushels of grain. Taken to Queenstown August 2; detained at Liverpool August 19.

S. S. Berwindmoor (British): Sailed from New Orleans July 21, 1914, for Rotterdam. Cargo, 196,000 bushels of grain. Diverted to Falmouth August 5; at London August 21.

S. S. Campanello (British): Sailed from New York July 30, 1914, for Rotterdam. Sent to Cardiff August 12; detained.

S. S. Spenser (British): Sailed from New York July 31, 1914, for Rotterdam. Sent to Liverpool.

S. S. Saint Helena (British): Sailed 1914 (via Norfolk, Va., July 24), for Cargo, phosphate rock, wheat, and cotton.

from Galveston July 16, Bremen and Hamburg. Diverted to Manchester.