File No. 763.72112/441
The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Counsellor for the Department of State
Washington December 2, 1914.
[Received December 3.]
Dear Mr. Counsellor: I have carefully considered the memorandum1 you handed me this morning protesting against the detention by the British Government of ships containing cargoes of meat-food products, shipped to Scandinavian ports, principally Copenhagen, between October 8 and November 19.
I have lost no time in communicating the sense of this memorandum to my government by telegram and I will not fail to inform you of any reply which I may receive. In the meanwhile I hasten to make the following personal observations:
Apart from the duty of belligerents to respect neutral commerce, it is the desire of the British Government to facilitate by every possible means trade between neutral nations in which, as is well known, British interests are deeply involved. At the same time, as belligerents, they are bound to take certain measures of defense in conformity with the general practice hitherto observed by belligerent nations, and expressly confirmed in the United States general order of June 1898.
According to the general principles laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States during the Civil War, ships trading with a neutral port, in the vicinity of a belligerent country, for instance Matamoros in Mexico, were to be treated as if carrying goods directly to an enemy port and as “necessary to the convenient passage of property from one end to the other.” That the goods were shipped deliverable to “order or assigns” in the neutral port seems to have been regarded as sufficient to justify seizure even though there was nothing irregular or unusual in giving this form to the bills of lading.
It is established that goods consigned to order in Denmark have been immediately forwarded to a belligerent destination and ships going to a port in such a situation are naturally subject to suspicion, [Page 353] especially if the cargoes are consigned to order without further evidence as to the real consignee. It is greatly to be regretted that owing to the size of modern ships, a search takes a longer time than formerly, especially for an article like copper which is loaded deep. But it is as essential for a belligerent now as in 1862 to make every effort to deprive an enemy of supplies necessary for carrying on the war and to reserve liberty to make a thorough examination of cargo which is only possible in a port. It has never, under such circumstances, been the custom to accept at once and without further enquiry the evidence of manifests, and it has been shown in a recent case that the requirements of the law have been satisfied, when false manifests have been given, by the payment of a fine. There is evidence that large quantities of copper have been purchased here by agents of a belligerent for the purpose of exporting it clandestinely to arms factories in Germany through neutral ports. This is of course a perfectly legitimate neutral operation but it entails as a consequence the equally legitimate right of belligerent search.
With regard to the reasons for the detention of particular ships and the free and unrestricted passage of others, I have no complete information. I may remark however that it is a principle accepted by our two Governments in the past that foodstuffs as such are not liable to seizure, but only when destined to the armed forces of the enemy. It is certainly the object of my Government to ensure to neutrals the continuance of at least their normal supplies of every commodity to the full extent of the domestic requirements. In order to ensure this object all that is required is to furnish adequate proof (as is already done in most instances without difficulty or delay) as to the neutral character of the consignee. It is known that at least one of the firms affected has been engaged from a date antecedent to the outbreak of the war in supplying foodstuffs in large quantities for military use and this fact according to established practice renders it incumbent on a belligerent to enquire somewhat narrowly into the real destination of goods consigned to such a port as Copenhagen.
It is, I know, the desire of my Government (as it was yours in 1862 and 1898) that, while maintaining the belligerent right of search, they should exercise it with as little inconvenience to neutrals as is compatible with safety and I am confident that practical means will be found by which these regrettable delays will be avoided.
I am [etc.]