File No. 763.72/2525

The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State 1

My Dear Mr. Secretary: I did not fail to communicate to my Government copy of your unofficial letter of the 18th January2 relative to submarine warfare.

My Government has given the matter its careful consideration in consultation with the Allied Governments and, in obedience to my instructions, I beg to communicate the accompanying memorandum embodying its views.

I am [etc.]

Cecil Spring Rice
[Enclosure—Translation]

Memorandum3

Upon perusal of the personal letter addressed under date of January 18 last, by the Honourable Secretary of State of the United States to the Ambassador of England at Washington, the Government of His Britannic Majesty could not but appreciate the lofty sentiments by which Mr. Lansing was inspired on submitting to the countries concerned certain considerations touching the defensive armament of merchant vessels. But the enemy’s lack of good faith, evidenced in too many instances to permit of their being regarded as isolated accidents, justifies the most serious doubt as to the possibility of putting into practice the suggestions thus formulated.

From a strictly legal standpoint, it must be admitted that the arming of merchant vessels for defence is their acknowledged right. It was established in some countries by long usage, in other countries it was expressly sanctioned by the legislator, such being the case in the United States in particular.

It being so, it seems obvious that any request that a belligerent forego lawful means of protection from the enemy’s unlawful attacks, places upon him, who-ever [Page 212] he may be, who formulates the proposition, the duty and responsibility of compelling that enemy to desist from such attacks, for the said enemy would otherwise be encouraged rather to persist in that course. Now, the suggestions above referred to do not provide any immediately efficacious sanction.

It is a matter of public knowledge that Germany as early as August 1914 strewed mines over the northern seas of Europe, and later other seas, without regard to any of the requirements of international law. The attendant loss of human lives and of vessels, though neutral, carrying innocent cargo was large. The perpetrators of those acts appear to have drawn encouragement from impunity.

The first act of that nature dates back to October 26, 1914. On that date, the French mail steamer, Amiral Ganteaume, unarmed, carrying from one point on the French coast to another 2,500 civilian refugees largely consisting of women, children, and old men, was torpedoed without summons. Many lives were lost. After a thoroughgoing inquiry into the circumstances of the outrage, France served every neutral power with a statement thereof, but no useful result was achieved. As no sanction intervened, crimes of that description were repeated in large numbers thereafter.

In February of last year, Germany again grew so bold as to proclaim that it generalized its criminal action while limiting it to the northern seas of Europe. Whereupon and soon thereafter it began the same proceedings in the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean, and wherever a chance offered, and attacked neutral as well as Allied vessels, passenger ships as well as freighters.

Great Britain is unable to agree that, upon a non-guaranteed German promise, human life may be surrendered defenseless to the mercy of an enemy who, in circumstances of this kind as in many others, has shown himself to be both faithless and lawless.

At the end of his letter, the Honourable Secretary of State hypothetically considered the possibility of eventual decisions under which armed merchant vessels might be treated as auxiliary cruisers.

It is His Britannic Majesty’s Government’s conviction that the realization of such a hypothesis which would materially modify, to Germany’s advantage, the statement of views published in this respect by the American Government on September 19, 1914, can not be given practical consideration by the American authorities.

Such a modification indeed would be inconsistent with the general principles of neutrality as sanctioned in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the preamble to the 13th convention of The Hague concerning maritime neutrality. Moreover the result would be contrary to the stipulations of the 7th convention of The Hague concerning the transformation of merchant vessels into war ships. Finally if armed merchant vessels were to be treated as auxiliary cruisers, they would possess the right of making prizes, and this would mean the revival of privateering.

  1. Similar letters transmitting identical memoranda (mutatis mutandis) were received from the Russian Ambassador and the Belgian Minister on March 23 (both dated March 23), and from the French Ambassador on March 24 (dated March 22).
  2. Ante, p. 146.
  3. Original in French.