(c) When a merchant vessel which has on a previous voyage between ports of the United States and ports of other neutral States failed to have on board at the port of arrival a cargo consisting of naval supplies shipped at the port of departure seeks to take on board a similar cargo.

(d) When coal or other supplies are purchased by an agent of a belligerent Government and shipped on board a merchant vessel which does not clear for a port of the belligerent but for a neighboring neutral port.

(e) When an agent of a belligerent is taken on board a merchant vessel having a cargo of fuel or other supplies and clearing for a neighboring neutral port.

4. The fact that a merchant vessel, which is laden with fuel or other naval supplies, seeks clearance under strong suspicion that it is the intention to furnish such fuel or supplies to a belligerent warship is not sufficient ground to warrant its detention, if the case is isolated and neither the vessel nor the warship for which the supplies are presumably intended has previously taken on board similar supplies since the war began or within three months during the period of the war.

5. The essential idea of neutral territory becoming the base for naval operations by a belligerent is repeated, departure from such territory by a naval tender of the belligerent or by a merchant vessel in belligerent service which is laden with fuel or other naval supplies.

6. A merchant vessel, laden with naval supplies, clearing from a port of the United States for the port of another neutral nation, which arrives at its destination and there discharges its cargo, should not be detained if, on a second voyage, it takes on board another cargo of similar nature.

In such a case the port of the other neutral nation may be a base for the naval operations of a belligerent. If so, and even if the fact is notorious, this Government is under no obligation to prevent the shipment of naval supplies to that port. Commerce in munitions of war between neutral nations can not, as a rule, be a basis for a claim of unneutral conduct, even though there is a strong presumption or actual knowledge that the neutral State in whose port the supplies are discharged is permitting its territory to be used as a base of supply for belligerent warships. The duty of preventing an unneutral act rests entirely upon the neutral State whose territory is being used as such a base.

In fact, this principle goes further in that, if the supplies were shipped directly to an established naval base in the territory or under the control of a belligerent, this Government would not be obligated by its neutral duty to limit such shipments or detain or otherwise interfere with the merchant vessels engaged in that trade. A neutral can only be charged with unneutral conduct when the supplies furnished to a belligerent warship or furnished directly to it in a port of the neutral or through naval tenders or merchant vessels acting as tenders departing from such port.

7. The foregoing propositions do not apply to furnishing munitions of war included in absolute contraband, since in no event can a belligerent warship take on board such munitions in neutral waters,

nor should it be permitted to do so indirectly by means of naval tenders or merchant vessels acting as such tenders. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, September 19, 1914.

File No. 763.72111/156.

THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR.

No. 500.1

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 26, 1914. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, in which, with reference to the presence in American ports of the British armed merchant vessels Adriatic and Merion, you advise the department of the receipt of a dispatch from Sir Edward Grey, in which he states that His Majesty's Government holds the view that it is not in accordance with neutrality and international law to detain in neutral ports merchant vessels armed with purely defensive armaments.

In reply I have the honor to state that this Government has had the matter of the status of armed merchant vessels under consideration, and that it has already made a public announcement thereon.

In this relation I have also the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your embassy's memorandum of the 7th instant, announcing the departure of the Adriatic from New York, and pointing out that, as she had no war material on board and carried no army reservists, these data bear out the assurances that the Adriatic was bound on a peaceful commercial voyage and that her armament was destined solely for defensive purposes.

I have, etc.,

File No. 763.72111/227.

No. 143.]

ROBERT LANSING.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO AMBASSADOR GERARD.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 29, 1914. SIR: I transmit herewith, for the information of the German Government, copies of two memoranda issued by this department which define the general rules which the Government of the United States will follow in dealing with cases involving the status of armed merchant vessels visiting American ports and with cases of merchant vessels suspected of carrying supplies to belligerent warships from American ports.

Copies of these memoranda were also sent to the German ambassador here, and it is at his request that the copies herewith are sent for communication to his Government.

I am, etc.

For the Secretary of State:

ROBERT LANSING.

File No. 763.72111/473.

AMBASSADOR GERARD TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

[Telegram-Paraphrase.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY, Berlin, October 15, 1914-7 p. m.

Mr. Gerard transmits the following memorandum, which he says he has received from the German foreign office:

* * *

"An official notice appearing in the Westminster Gazette of September 21, 1914, states that the Department of State at Washington has ruled that ships of belligerent nations when equipped with ammunition and armament shall be treated, nevertheless, while in American ports, as merchant ships, provided the armament serves for defensive purposes only. This ruling wholly fails to comply with the principles of neutrality. The equipment of British merchant vessels with artillery is for the purpose of making armed resistance against German cruisers. Resistance of this sort is contrary to international law, because in a military sense a merchant vessel is not permitted to defend itself against a war vessel, an act of resistance giving the warship [omission] with crew and passengers. It is a question whether or not ships thus armed should be admitted into ports of a neutral country at all. Such ships, in any event, should not receive any better treatment in neutral ports than a regular warship, and should be subject at least to the rules issued by neutral nations restricting the stay of a warship. If the Government of the United States considers that it fulfills its duty as a neutral nation by confining the admission of armed merchant ships to such ships as are equipped for defensive purposes only, it is pointed out that so far as determining the warlike character of a ship is concerned the distinction between the defensive and offensive is irrelevant. The destination of a ship for use of any kind in war is conclusive, and restrictions as to the extent of armament affords no guaranty that ships armed for defensive purposes only will not be used for offensive purposes under certain circumstances."

File No. 763.72111/473.

THE ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE TO AMBASSADOR GERARD.

[Telegram.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 7, 1914. Your 515, October 15. The Government of the United States is obliged to dissent from the views of the German Government as expressed in your telegram in regard to the treatment to be accorded armed merchant vessels of belligerent nationality in neutral ports. The practice of a majority of nations and the concensus of opinion by the leading authorities on international law, including many German writers, support the proposition that merchant vessels may arm

for defense without losing their private character and that they may employ such armament against hostile attack without contravening the principles of international law.

The purpose of an armament on a merchant vessel is to be determined by various circumstances, among which are the number and position of the guns on the vessel, the quantity of ammunition and fuel, the number and sex of the passengers, the nature of the cargo, etc. Tested by evidence of this character the question as to whether an armament on a merchant vessel is intended solely for defensive purposes may be readily answered and the neutral government should regulate its treatment of the vessel in accordance with the intended. use of the armament.

This Government considers that in permitting a private vessel having a general cargo, a customary amount of fuel, an average crew, and passengers of both sexes on board, and carrying a small armament and a small amount of ammunition, to enjoy the hospitality of an American port as a merchant vessel, it is in no way violating its duty as a neutral. Nevertheless it is not unmindful of the fact that the circumstances of a particular case may be such as to cause embarrassment and possible controversy as to the character of an armed private vessel visiting its ports. Recognizing, therefore, the desirability of avoiding a ground of complaint this Government, as soon as a case arose, while frankly admitting the right of a merchant vessel to carry a defensive armament, expressed its disapprobation of a practice which compelled it to pass upon a vessel's intended use, which opinion if proven subsequently to be erroneous might constitute a ground for a charge of unneutral conduct.

As a result of these representations no merchant vessels with armaments have visited the ports of the United States since the 10th of September. In fact, from the beginning of the European war but two armed private vessels have entered or cleared from ports of this country, and as to these vessels their character as merchant vessels was conclusively established.

Please bring the foregoing to the attention of the German Government, and in doing so express the hope that they will also prevent their merchant vessels from entering the ports of the United States carrying armaments even for defensive purposes though they may possess the right to do so by the rules of international law.

LANSING.

In August of last year, 1916, the status of belligerent submarines in American waters was announced.

File No. 763.72111/3958.

MEMORANDUM FROM THE FRENCH EMBASSY."

(Identic memoranda were received from the embassies of Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, and on Sept. 2, 1916, from the Italian Embassy, and on Sept. 11, 1916, from the Portuguese Legation.)

[Translation.]

FRENCH EMBASSY, Washington, August 21, 1916.

MEMORANDUM.

In the presence of the development of submarine navigation, under existing circumstances and by reason of what may unfortunately be expected from enemy submarines, the allied governments deem it necessary, in order to protect their belligerent rights and the freedom of commercial navigation, as well as to remove chances of conflict, to exhort the neutral governments, if they have not already done so, to take efficacious measures tending to prevent belligerent submarines, regardless of their use, to avail themselves of neutral waters, roadsteads, and harbors.

In the case of submarines the application of the principles of international law offers features that are as peculiar as they are novel, by reason, on the one hand, of the facility possessed by such craft to navigate and sojourn in the seas while submerged and thus escape any supervision or surveillance, and, on the other hand, of the impossibility to identify them and determine their national character, whether neutral or belligerent, combatant or innocent, and to put out of consideration the power to do injury that is inherent in their very nature.

It may be said, lastly, that any submarine war vessel far away from its base, having at its disposal a place where it can rest and replenish its supplies, is afforded, by mere rest obtained, so many additional facilities that the advantages it derives therefrom turn that place into a veritable basis of naval operations.

In view of the present condition of things the allied governments hold that

Submarine vessels must be excluded from the benefit of the rules heretofore accepted in international law regarding the admission and sojourn of war and merchant vessels in the neutral waters, roadsteads, and harbors; any submarine of the belligerents that once enters a neutral harbor must be held there.

The allied governments take this opportunity to warn the neutral powers of the great danger to neutral submarines attending the navigation of waters visited by the submarines of belligerents.

File No. 763.72111/3958.

MEMORANDUM TO THE FRENCH EMBASSY.

(Same to the Embassies of Great Britain, Russia, and Japan, and, mutatis mutandis, to the Italian Embassy, Sept. 8, 1916, and to the Portuguese Legation, Sept. 13, 1916.)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 31, 1916.

MEMORANDUM.

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, regard