Jasper County Democrat, Volume 17, Number 77, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 January 1915 — LONDON PROMISES FRIENDLY ANSWER TO AMERICAN NOTE [ARTICLE]

LONDON PROMISES FRIENDLY ANSWER TO AMERICAN NOTE

Wilson’s Document to Britain Is Made Public. U. S. ENVOY CALLS ON GREY Officials at Washington Would CoOperate With Agents of Great Britain In Removing Necessity for Search of Seas. London. Jan. I.—The official Information bureau thia afternoon gave out the following statement: '‘An answer to the American note will be drawn up as soon as possible. It will be in the same friendly spirit in which the American note la written.’*

By HERBERT TEMPLE.

International News Service Correspondent. London, Jan. I.—American*" Ambassador W. H. Page visited the foreign office and held a conference with Sir Edward Grey, the British foreign minister, relative to President Wilson’s note protesting against Interference with American shipping on the high, seas by British warships. U. 8. Awaits Reply. Washington, Jan. I.—Administration officials, waiting for a reply from theBritish government to the protest ot the United States against Interference with American shipping, turned their attention to suggestions that comefrom various sources relative to measures the Washington government might take to co-operate with Great Britain to remove as far as possible the necessity for search on the high seas, Text of U. 8. Protest. Washington, Jan. I.—By mutual agreement between the state department and the British foreign office the text of the note sent by the United States to Great'Britaln Insisting on an early Improvement in the treatment of American commerce by the British fleet was made public here. The.text in part follows: The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador at London, Department of State, Washington, Dec. 26, 1914.—The present condition of American foreign trade, resulting from the frequent of Amerlcan<cargoes destined to neutral European jiorts, has become so serious as to require a candid statement of the views of this government in order that the British government may be fully informed as to the attitude of the United States toward the policy which has been pursued by the British authorities during the present war. Friendly and Frank. You will, therefore, communicate the following to his majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, but in dplng so you will assure him that It Is done In the most friendly spirit and in the belief that frankness will better serve the continuance of cordial relations between the two silence, which may be misconstrued hito acquiescence in a course of conduct which this government cannot but consider 'to be an Infringement upon the rights of American cltiier*.

The government of the United States has viewed with growing concern the large number of vessels laden with American goods destined to neutral ports in Europe which have been seized oh the high seas, taken into British ports and detained sometimes for weeks by the British authorities. During the early days of the war this government assumed that the policy adopted by the British government was due to the unexpected outbreak of hostilities and the necessity of, immediate action to prevent contraband from reaching the-enemy. Irijurious to Trade, For this reason' it was not . distposed to judge this policy harshly, or protest it vigorously, although it was manifestly very injurious to American trade with the .neutral countries of Europe. This government confidently awaited amendment of a course of. action which denied to neutral conif merce the freedom to which it was entitled by the law of nations.. It is, therefore, a matter of deep regret that, though nearly five months have passed since tire war began, the British government has not material changed its policy. The greater freedom from detention and seizure which was confidently expected to result from consigning shipments to definite consignees, rather than “to order,” is still awaited. It is with no lack of-appreciation of the momentous nature of the present struggle, in which Great Britain is engaged, and with no selfish desire

to gain undue commercial advantage that this government is reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the present policy of his majesty’s government toward neutral ships and cargoes exceeds the manifest necessityl of a belligereht and constitutes restriction s upon the rights of American citizens on the bSgh seas 'Which are not justified by the rules of interiiatiohal law or required under the principle of self-preservation. Articles? listed as absolute contraband, shipped from the United States and consigned to neutral countries, have been seized and detained on the ground that the countries. to Which they were destined- have not prohibited the exportation of -such articles. • Unwarranted as such detentions aje, -in the opinion of this government, American exporters are further perplexed by the apparent indecision of the British' authorities in applying their own rules to neutral cargoes.

We feel that we are abundantly justified in asking for information as to the manner in which the British government proposes to carry out the policy which it has adopted, in order that we may determine the steps necessary to protect our citizens engaged in foreign trade.. In the case of conditional contraband the policy of Great Britain appears to this government to be equally unjustified by the established rules of international conduct. Not Cured by Reimbursement.

The effect upon trade in these articles between neutral nations resulting from interrupted voyages and detained cargoes is not entirely cured by reimbursement of the owners for the damages which they have suffered. That a consignment “to order” of articles listed as conditional contraband and shipped to a neutral port raises a legal presumption of enemy destination appears to be directly contrary to the doctrines previously held by Great Britain and thus stated by Lord Salisbury during the South African war: “Foodstuffs, though having a hostile destination, can be considered as contraband of war only if they are for the enemy forces; it is not sufficient that they are capable of being so used, it must be shown that this was in fact their destination at the time of their seizure.” tV'.ii this statement as to conditional contraband, the views of this government are in entire accord, and upon this historic doctrine, consistently maintained by Great Britain when a belligerent as well as a neutral, American shippers were entitled to rely.. . Shows Situation- Is Critical.

Not only is the situation a critical one to the commercial interests of the United States, but many of the great industries of this country are suffering because their products are denied long-established markets in European countries. The government of the United States still relying upon the deep sense of justice of the British nation, expresses confidently the hope that his majesty’s government will realize the obstacles and difficulties which their present policy has placed in the w r ay of commerce between the United States and the neutral countries of Europe, and will instruct its officials to refrain from all unnecessary interference with the freedom of trade between nations which are sufferers. In conclusion it should be impressed upon his majesty’s government that the present condition of AmericaTr trade with the neutral European countries is such that if it does not improve it may arouse a feeling contrary to that which has so long existed between the American and British peoples. The attention of the British government is called to this possible result of their present policy to show how widespread the effect is upon the Industrial life of the United States and to emphasize the importance of removing the cause of complaint.