File No. 195.1/601
Mr. James Harold Warner to the Secretary of State
Dear Sir: Clients of mine have been discussing the purchase of some interned ships of one of the countries at war.
The purchase, if made, would constitute a bona-fide sale to native Americans and the ships would not be used to carry cargo to North Sea or Baltic ports.
The important question, therefore, is, does Article 56 of the Declaration of London, which requires, where the transfer of a ship from the enemy to a neutral flag is made after war has broken out, that the purchaser prove that the transfer was not made in order to evade the consequences of being an enemy ship, affect the validity of the transfer and, therefore, the ship’s safe-conduct?
In other words, just how far will our Government permit the Government of Great Britain to go in determining that a ship, under the above-mentioned conditions, was transferred “to evade the consequence of being an enemy shipy”?
[Page 696]Must the motive of the evasion be of consequence—must the evasion be substantial or need it be only technical to come within the principle laid down by Article 56?
In short, my clients would be glad to be advised as to the position our Government would take in case a transfer of registry were made, under such circumstances as I have mentioned, and what protection would be given the ship or its cargo, the cargo being non-contraband and neither its immediate nor ultimate destination to be the countries at war with the government which might attempt to exercise the privilege claimed under the aforesaid Article 56.
I am assuming, of course, that your Department has already had this question so squarely before it as to have determined on a fixed line of conduct, and I shall be grateful to be advised in the premises at your convenience, for which I now thank you in advance.
I beg to remain [etc.]