SHIPMENT OF ARMS

GERMAN PROTEST1

The different British Orders in Council have altered the universally recognized rules of international law in such a onesided manner that they arbitrarily suppress the trade of neutral countries with Germany. Already, prior to the last Order in Council, the shipment of conditional contraband, especially foodstuffs, to Germany, was practically impossible. In fact, prior to the protest which the American government made in London on December 28, 1914, not a single shipment of such goods for Germany has been effected from the United States.

Also, after the lodging of the protest, and as far as is known to the German embassy, only one such shipment has been attempted by an American skipper. Ship and cargo were immediately seized by the British, and are still detained at a British port. As a pretext for this unwarranted action the British government referred to a decree of the German Federal Council concerning the wheat trade, although this decree only covered wheat and flour and no other foodstuffs, although imported foodstuffs were specially exempt from this decree, and although the German government had given all necessary guarantees to the United States government, and had even proposed a special organization in order to secure these foodstuffs for the exclusive consumption of the civilian population.

The seizure of an American ship under these circumstances was in contradiction with the recognized principles of international law. Nevertheless the United States government has not yet obtained the release of the ship, nor has it after eight months of war suceeded in safeguarding the legitimate American trade with Germany. Such a delay, especially where the supply of foodstuffs is concerned, seems equivalent to complete failure. It is therefore to be assumed that the United States

1 Memorandum by Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, German Ambassador at Washington, dated April 4, 1915, and addressed to the United States Government.

government has accepted England's violations of international law.

Furthermore has to be considered the attitude of the government of the United States concerning the question of the exportation of war material. The imperial embassy hopes to agree with the government of the United States in assuming that, with regard to the question of neutrality, there is not only the formal side to be considered, but also the spirit in which neutrality is enforced.

Conditions in the present war are different from those in any former wars. For this reason it is not justified to point at the fact that perhaps in former wars Germany furnished belligerents with war material, because in those former cases the question was not whether any war material was to be furnished to the belligerents, but merely which one of the competing countries would furnish it. In the present war, with the exception of the United States, all the countries capable of a noteworthy production of war material are either at war themselves or completing their armaments, and have accordingly prohibited the exportation of war material. Therefore the United States of America is the only country in a position to export war material. This fact ought to give a new meaning to the idea of neutrality, independent of the formal law.

Instead of that, and in contradiction with the real spirit of neutrality, an enormous new industry of war materials of every kind is being built up in the United States, inasmuch as not only the existing plants are kept busy and enlarged, but also new ones are continually founded.

The international agreements for the protection of the right of neutrals originate in the necessity of protecting the existing industries of the neutral countries. They were never intended to encourage the creation of entirely new industries in neutral states, as, for instance, the new war industry in the United States, which supplies only one party of the belligerents.

In reality the American industry is supplying only Germany's enemies. A fact which is in no way modified by the purely theoretical willingness to furnish Germany as well, if it were possible.

If the American people desire to observe true neutrality, they will find means to stop the exclusive exportation of arms to

one side, or at least to use this export trade as a means to uphold the legitimate trade with Germany, especially the trade in foodstuffs. This spirit of neutrality should appear the more justified to the United States as it has been maintained toward Mexico.

According to the declaration of a congressman, made in the House Committee on Foreign Relations December 30, 1914, President Wilson is quoted as having said on February 4, 1914, when the embargo on arms for Mexico was lifted: "We should stand for genuine neutrality, considering the surrounding facts of the case." He then held in that case, because Carranza had no ports, while Huerta had them and was able to import these materials, that “it was our duty as a nation to treat them [Carranza and Huerta] upon an equality if we wished to observe the true spirit of neutrality as compared with a mere paper neutrality."

This conception of "the true spirit of neutrality,” if applied to the present case, would lead to an embargo on arms.

AMERICAN REPLY TO GERMAN PROTEST1

I have given thoughtful consideration to your Excellency's note of the 4th of April, 1915, inclosing a memorandum of the same date, in which your Excellency discusses the action of this government with regard to trade between the United States and Germany, and the attitude of this government with regard to the exportation of arms from the United States to the nations now at war with Germany.

I must admit that I am somewhat at a loss how to interpret your Excellency's treatment of these matters. There are many circumstances connected with these important subjects to which I would have expected your Excellency to advert, but of which you make no mention, and there are other circumstances to which you do refer which I would have supposed to be hardly appropriate for discussion between the government of the United States and the government of Germany.

I shall take the liberty, therefore, of regarding your Excel

1 This reply was officially signed by William Jennings Bryan, as Secretary of State, and was made public on April 21, 1915. It was reported that 'the note was drafted by President Wilson personally.

lency's references to the course, pursued by the government of the United States, with regard to interferences with trade from this country such as the government of Great Britain have attempted, as intended merely to illustrate more fully the situation to which you desire to call our attention, and not as an invitation to discuss that course.

Your Excellency's long experience in international affairs will have suggested to you that these relations of the two governments with one another cannot wisely be made a subject of discussion with a third government, which cannot be fully informed as to the facts, and which cannot be fully cognizant of the reasons for the course pursued.

I believe, however, that I am justified in assuming that what you desire to call forth is a frank statement of the position of this government in regard to its obligations as a neutral

power.

The general attitude and course of policy of this government in the maintenance of its neutrality I am particularly anxious that your Excellency should see in their true light. I had hoped that this government's position in these respects had been made abundantly clear, but I am, of course, perfectly willing to state it again.

This seems to me the more necessary and desirable because, I regret to say, the language, which your Excellency employs in your memorandum, is susceptible of being construed as impugning the good faith of the United States in the performance of its duties as a neutral.

I take it for granted that no such implication was intended, but it is so evident that your Excellency is laboring under certain false impressions that I cannot be too explicit in setting forth the facts as they are, when fully reviewed and comprehended.

In the first place, this government has at no time and in no manner yielded any one of its rights as a neutral to any one of the present belligerents.

It has acknowledged, as a matter of course, the right of visit and search and the right to apply the rules of contraband of war to articles of commerce. It has, indeed, insisted upon the use of visit and search as an absolutely necessary safeguard against mistaking neutral vessels for vessels owned by any enemy and against mistaking legal cargoes for illegal. It has

admitted also the right of blockade if actually exercised and effectively maintained.

These are merely the well-known limitations which war places upon neutral commerce on the high seas. But nothing beyond these has it conceded.

I call your Excellency's attention to this, notwithstanding it is already known to all the world as a consequence of the publication of our correspondence in regard to these matters with several of the belligerent nations, because I cannot assume that you have official cognizance of it.

In the second place, this government attempted to secure from the German and British governments mutual concessions with regard to the measures those governments respectively adopted for the interruption of trade on the high seas. This it did, not of right, but merely as exercising the privileges of a sincere friend of both parties and as indicating its impartial good-will.

The attempt was unsuccessful, but I regret that your Excellency did not deem it worthy of mention in modification of the impressions you expressed. We had hoped that this act on our part had shown our spirit in these times of distressing war, as our diplomatic correspondence had shown our steadfast refusal to acknowledge the right of any belligerent to alter the accepted rules of war at sea in so far as they affect the rights and interests of neutrals.

In the third place, I note with sincere regret that in discussing the sale and exportation of arms by citizens of the United States to the enemies of Germany, your Excellency seems to be under the impression that it was within the choice of the government of the United States, notwithstanding its professed neutrality and its diligent efforts to maintain it in other particulars, to inhibit this trade, and that its failure to do so manifested an unfair attitude toward Germany.

This government holds, as I believe your Excellency is aware and as it is constrained to hold in view of the present indisputable doctrines of accepted international law, that any change in its own laws of neutrality during the progress of a war, which would affect unequally the relations of the United States with the nations at war, would be an unjustifiable departure from the principle of strict neutrality, by which it has consistently sought to direct its actions, and I respectfully submit that