File No. 656.119/270
The Minister in the Netherlands ( Garrett) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 26, 6.58 a.m.]
2201.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The President’s clear statement is beginning to sink in and its effect is unerringly good. It is perfectly needless to say that any statement by him makes statements from other sources comparatively valueless. With this in mind, a leading news agency here, “Vazdias,” which serves all Dutch papers, and German papers besides, has asked me to telegraph you some points that this agency considers not yet clear to the Dutch intelligence. Their desire is that, as they have no representative in America, indeed, as there is no accredited representative of the Dutch press there, and as therefore the American news they get does not come over to them straight, they may be allowed to use a form perhaps a little novel, [but] none the less practical, of putting the President’s views before the Dutch public. There is a crisis here, and that is my reason for falling in with their suggestion and of even urging it upon your consideration. For the moment the Government’s [Page 1430] decision as to the official answer to our action in requisitioning Dutch ships seems to be held up while every Dutchman is breathlessly awaiting the outcome of the fight on the western front. It seems to be a favorable moment, therefore, to clear up our point of view, although it may seem to us that it should be perfectly clear already even to the Dutch mentality. The news agency above mentioned, puts it in this way: That the excitement, indignation and sorrow that have been felt here over our action, have been greatly alleviated by the President’s statement, but that there are still some points not quite clearly understood in Holland. They believe that a further statement by the President on these points would produce a further revulsion in public opinion in our favor. I think it is quite possible and I therefore submit their points without editing for your consideration, and if that be favorable, I ask that you cable the statement to me for transmission to the news agency that is responsible for this suggestion. It would create a gratuitously awkward situation if their suggestion were followed out in any other way and might lose us their very valuable services for the future. The points are as follows:
- 1.
- What made the greatest impression here was, if we may call it so, the moral side of the question. People could not grasp that the President, on whose person the hopes of the whole democracy are put, could allow the execution of an act which is regarded here as arbitrary and which wounds the Dutch people in its national honor.
- 2.
- It is understood that it is attempted to justify the action by the angary. This right is considered here in opposition with the principles of the right of nations. The opinions of several famous writers on international law are quoted against it, while even its warmest advocates defend it only in case it is appealed to in the extremest necessity of war.
- 3.
- The President’s statement that the Dutch ships were lying useless and unemployed in the harbors of the United States has been contradicted by the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs, who said that under the modus vivendi the greater part of those ships had already been chartered and were partly already sailing and that at the moment of requisitioning, all ships had been offered for charter.
- 4.
- Although the promise of 100,000 tons of corn being put at Holland’s disposal has been received here with much satisfaction, some doubt reigns as to how this corn will get here. There are practically no ships on the other side of the ocean to transport it. On the other hand, it is feared that Germany will not allow Dutch ships to leave Dutch ports to fetch it, unless other Dutch ships return to Dutch ports. Some of the Dutch papers therefore propose that the Associated Governments give a guarantee that Dutch ships, transporting [Page 1431] corn from neutral, namely, Argentine ports to Holland, should not be forced to call at Allied ports, so that the right of angary could be executed on them. Another solution of this, which is a capital question for Holland, might be found in a shipping agreement being reached between both belligerent groups under which supplies to Holland might be arranged for somewhat as are those for the Belgian Relief. Would the Government of the United States be willing to consider such guarantee and such agreement?
- 5.
- Would the United States also be willing to facilitate the supply to Holland of other indispensable foodstuffs and goods?
- 6.
- Lord Robert Cecil stated that Dutch ships leaving Dutch ports after March 21, would not be put into service of the Allies except by agreement. Some Dutch papers assert that the Dutch shipowners would not venture to let their ships sail without very real guarantees that such ships will not be again required by the Allies. Could the President make a more definite statement on this matter?
- 7.
- With regard to the statement that the Associated Governments are prepared to allow Dutch shipowners, under mutually agreed-upon conditions, the right of option of replacing each ship lost by another within the shortest possible time after the conclusion of peace. Some fear has been expressed that if Dutch shipowners prefer such replacement to money payment, the replacement will not take place without conditions. As it is one of Holland’s most vital interests that it shall have its commercial fleet at its disposal after the war, a plain statement regarding this replacement would be greeted here with much joy.
- 8.
- The attitude assumed by the United States disappointed wide circles here. They noted with great satisfaction that the President’s feeling of friendship for the Dutch Nation had not altered. It is, however, difficult for them to understand how the President’s feelings can be made to accord with the present action of the Government.