Слике страница


mained from thias (2)" ng had mad British ni they wenanchore

British naval authorities also have laid some anchored mines on the high seas. They have done so, but the mines were anchored and so constructed that they would be harmless if they went adrift, and no mines whatever were laid by the British naval authorities till many weeks after the Germans had made a regular practice of laying mines on the high seas. (2) It is said that the British Government has departed from the view of international law which they had previously maintained that foodstuffs destined for the civil population should never be interfered with, this charge being founded on the submission to a prize court of the cargo of the Wilhelmina. The special considerations affecting this cargo have already been presented in a memorandum to the United States Government, and I need not repeat them here. Inasmuch as the stoppage of all foodstuffs is an admitted consequence of blockade, it is obvious that there can be no universal rule based on considerations of morality and humanity which is contrary to this practice. The right to stop foodstuffs destined for the civil population must therefore in any case be admitted if an effective “cordon” controlling intercourse with the enemy is drawn, announced, and maintained. Moreover, independently of rights arising from belligerent action in the nature of blockade, some other nations, differing from the opinion of the Governments of the United States and Great Britain, have held that to stop the food of the civil population is a natural and legitimate method of bringing pressure to bear on an enemy country, as it is upon the defense of a besieged town. It is also upheld on the authority of both Prince Bismarck and Count Caprivi, and therefore presumably is not repugnant to German morality. The following are the quotations from Prince Bismarck and Count Caprivi on this point. Prince Bismarck, in answering, in 1885, an application from the Kiel Chamber of Commerce for a statement of the view of the German Government on the question of the right to declare as contraband foodstuffs that were not intended for military forces, said: “I reply to the chamber of commerce that any disadvantage our commercial and carrying interests may suffer by the treatment of rice as contraband for 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 weighted 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.” Count Caprivi, during a discussion in the German Reichstag on the 4th of March, 1892, on the subject of the importance of international protection for private property at sea, made the following statements: "A country may be dependent for her food or for her raw products upon her trade. In fact, it may be absolutely necessary to destroy the enemy's trade.” * * * “ The private introduction of provisions into Paris was prohibited during the siege, and in the same way a nation would be justified in preventing the import of food and raw

produce.". The Government of Great Britain have frankly declared in concert with the Government of France their intention to meet the German attempt to stop all supplies of every kind from leaving or entering British or French ports by themselves effectively controlling by cruiser “cordon ” all passage to and from Germany by sea. The difference between the two policies is, however, that while our object is the same as that of Germany we propose to attain it without sacrificing neutral ships or noncombatant lives or inflicting upon neutrals the damage that must be entailed when a vessel and its cargo are sunk without notice, examination, or trial. I must emphasize again that this measure is a natural and necessary consequence of the unprecedented methods, repugnant to all law and morality, which have been described above, which Germany began to adopt at the very outset of the war, and the effects of which have been constantly accumulating. (Dip. Corr., 64–65.)

On the 1st of March, 1915, the British prime minister read a statement to Parliament on the restraint of commerce on the seas:

British and French declarations, March 1, 1915, in restraint of seaborne commerce with Germany. (Statement read by the British prime minister in the House of Commons and communicated to the neutral powers.)

(The British ambassador at Washington to the Secretary of State.) Germany has declared that the English Channel, the north and west coasts of France, and the waters around the British Isles are a war area, and has officially notified that all enemy ships found in that area will be destroyed and that neutral vessels may be exposed to danger. This is in effect a claim to torpedo at sight, without regard to the safety of the crew or passengers, any merchant vessel under any flag. As it is not in the power of the German admiralty to maintain any surface craft in these waters, this attack can only be delivered by submarine agency.

The law and customs of nations in regard to attacks on commerce have always presumed that the first duty of the captor of a merchant vessel is to bring it before a prize court, where it may be tried, where the regularity of the capture may be challenged, and where neutrals may recover their cargoes. The sinking of prizes is in itself a questionable act, to be resorted to only in extraordinary circumstances and after provision has been made for the safety of all the crew or passengers, if there are passengers on board. The responsibility for discriminating between neutral and enemy vessels and between neutral and enemy cargo obviously rests with the attacking ship, whose duty it is to verify the status and character of the vessel and cargo and to preserve all papers before sinking or even capturing it. So also is the humane duty of providing for the safety of the crews of merchant vessels, whether neutral or enemy, an obligation upon every belligerent.

It is upon this basis that all previous discussions of the law for regulating warfare at sea have proceeded. A German submarine, however, fulfills none of these obligations; she enjoys no local command of the waters in which she operates; she does not take her cap84610°—H. Doc. 2111, 64-2, pt

2 8

tures within the jurisdiction of a prize court; she carries no prize crew which she can put on board a prize; she uses no effective means of discriminating between a neutral and an enemy vessel; she does not receive on board for safety the crew and passengers of the vessel she sinks; her methods of warfare are therefore entirely outside the scope of any of the international instruments regulating operations against commerce in time of war. The German declaration substitutes indiscriminate destruction for regulated capture. Germany is adapting these methods against peaceful traders and noncombatant crews with the avowed object of preventing commodities of all kinds, including food for the civil poulation, from reaching or leaving the British Isles or northern France.

Her opponents are therefore driven to frame retaliatory measures in order in their turn to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or leaving Germany. These measures will, however, be enforced by the British and French Governments without risk to neutral ships or to neutral or noncombatant life and in strict observance of the dictates of humanity. The British and French Governments will therefore hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation. The treatment of vessels and cargoes which have sailed before this date will not be affected.

CECIL SPRING RICE. Three days later, March 4, Congress passed the following resolution:

Resolution of Congress, March 4, 1915, safeguarding the neutrality of American waters.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this resolution, and during the existence of a war to which the United States is not a party, and in order to prevent the neutrality of the United States from being violated by the use of its territory, its ports, or its territorial waters, as the base of operations for the armed forces of a belligerent, contrary to the obligations imposed by the law of nations, the treaties to which the United States is a party, or contrary to the statutes of the United States, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized and empowered to direct the collectors of customs under the jurisdiction of the United States to withhold clearance from any vessel of American or foreign registry or license which he has reasonable cause to believe to be about to carry fuel, arms, ammunition, men, or supplies to any warship, or tender, or supply ships of a belligerent nation in violation of the obligations of the United States as a neutral nation.

In case any such vessel of American register or license shall depart or attempt to depart from the jurisdiction of the United States without clearance for any of the purposes, the owner or master or person or persons having charge or command of such vessel shall severally be liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $10,000, or to imprisonment not to exceed two years, or both; and in addition such vessels shall be forfeited to the United States.

That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby. authorized and empowered to employ such part of the land or naval

forces of the United States as shall be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.

That the provisions of this resolution shall be deemed to extend to all lands and water, continental or insular, within the jurisdiction of the United States. (New York Times, Mar. 4, 1915.)

The next day, March 5, inquiry was directed to Great Britain on the proposed restraint of sea-borne commerce:

American note, March 5, 1915, inquiring how the restraint upon sea-borne commerce with Germany is to be effected.

(The Secretary of State to the American ambassador at London.)

In regard to the recent communications received from the British and French Governments concerning restraints upon commerce with Germany, please communicate with the British foreign office in the sense following:

The difficulty of determining action upon the British and French declarations of intended retaliation upon commerce with Germany lies in the nature of the proposed measures in their relation to commerce by neutrals.

While it appears that the intention is to interfere with and take into custody all ships, both outgoing and incoming trading with Germany, which is in effect a blockade of German ports, the rule of blockade, that a ship attempting to enter or leave a German port regardless of the character of its cargo may be condemned, is not asserted.

The language of the declaration is: “ The British and French Governments will therefore hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation.”

The first sentence claims a right pertaining only to a state of blockade. The last sentence proposes a treatment of ships and cargoes as if no blockade existed. The two together present a proposed course of action previously unknown to international law.

As a consequence neutrals have no standard by which to measure their rights or to avoid danger to their ships and cargoes. The paradoxical situation thus created should be changed and the declaring powers ought to assert whether they rely upon the rules governing a blockade or the rules applicable when no blockade exists.

The declaration presents other perplexities.

The last sentence quoted indicates that the rules of contraband are to be applied to cargoes detained. The rule covering noncontraband articles carried in neutral bottoms is that the cargoes shall be released and the ships allowed to proceed. This rule can not, under the first sentence quoted, be applied as to destination. What, then, is to be done with a cargo of noncontraband goods detained under the declaration? The same question may be asked as to conditional contraband cargoes.

The foregoing comments apply to cargoes destined for Germany. Cargoes coming out of German ports present another problem under the terms of the declaration. Under the rules governing enemy exports only goods owned by enemy subjects in enemy bottoms are subject to seizure and condemnation. Yet by the declaration it is purposed to seize and take into port all goods of enemy“ ownership and origin.” The word "origin" is particularly significant. The origin of goods destined to neutral territory on neutral ships is not and never has been a ground for forfeiture except in case a blockade is declared and maintained. What, then, would the seizure amount to in the present case except to delay the delivery of the goods? The declaration does not indicate what disposition would be made of such cargoes if owned by a neutral or if owned by an enemy subject. Would a different rule be applied according to ownership? If so, upon what principles of international law would it rest? And upon what rule if no blockade is declared and maintained could the cargo of a neutral ship sailing out of a German port be condemned? If it is not condemned, what other legal course is there but to release it?

While this Government is fully alive to the possibility that the methods of modern naval warfare, particularly in the use of the submarine for both defensive and offensive operations, may make the former means of maintaining a blockade a physical impossibility, it feels that it can be urged with great force that there should be also some limit to “ the radius of activity,” and especially so if this action by the belligerents can be construed to be a blockade. It would certainly create a serious state of affairs if, for example, an American vessel laden with a cargo of German origin should escape the British patrol in European waters only to be held up by a cruiser off New York and taken into Halifax. Similar cablegram sent to Paris.

BRYAN. Ten days later—March 15—the British reply, as follows, was received:

British note, March 15, 1915, replying to the American inquiry about the restraint on sea-borne commerce with Germany.

.(The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the American ambassador.). 1. His Majesty's Government have had under careful consideration the inquiries which, under instructions from your Government, your excellency addressed to me on the 8th instant regarding the scope and mode of application of the measures, foreshadowed in the British and French declarations of the 1st of March, for restricting the trade of Germany. Your excellency explained and illustrated by reference to certain contingencies the difficulty of the United States Government in adopting a definite attitude toward these measures by reason of uncertainty regarding their bearing upon the commerce of neutral countries.

2. I can at once' assure your excellency that, subject to the paramount necessity of restricting German trade, Mis Majesty's Government have made it their first aim to minimize inconvenience to neutral commerce. From the accompanying copy of the order in council, which is to be published to-day, you will observe that a wide discretion is afforded to the prize court in dealing with the trade of neutrals in such manner as may in the circumstances be deemed just and that full provision is made to facilitate claims by persons interested in any goods placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court under the order. I apprehend that the perplexities to which your

« ПретходнаНастави »