orderlies, who left that vessel before it was interned, but who have with the remainder of its complement been interned within United States jurisdiction. You ask that, as the actual internment of the vessel took place on the 7th instant, and as the officers and their orderlies left Honolulu on the 28th ultimo, the case be reexamined and the officers and their orderlies be released. In reply I have the honor to advise you that the case has been carefully reexamined and that this Government, in its observance of a strict neutrality, is under obligation to retain these gentlemen in custody as a part of the Geier's company when she entered American jurisdiction. It appears that these men were not only duly incorporated in the armed forces of Germany, a belligerent power, but were also in a sense a part of an organized body of such forces entering a neutral port. In such a case the laws of maritime warfare permit a limited hospitality to be extended to them, dependent upon their observing certain conditions. In the case of the Geier, these conditions were, it is believed, very generous. After a delay of several days within the hospitality of the United States, instead of the conventional twenty-four hours, these officers and their orderlies appear to have been granted sick leave by the captain of the Geier. This fact, however, can not, it is believed, properly be urged as separating them from the Geier in relation to its subsequent treatment. They arrived within United States jurisdiction as a part of an organized armed force of the German Empire, and this fact, in the opinion of this Government, appears to be the crux of the whole matter. Were a distinction to be made on the grounds set forth in your note a ship in danger from her enemy might enter a neutral port, and before the twenty-four hour period had elapsed, and before there was any danger of internment, her officers and crew might leave her and afterwards claim the right to return to their country as individuals. This course would manifestly not comport with the principles of neutrality as they are understood by the Department. Your excellency compares the case of these officers and men of H. M. S. Geier with that of Major Robertson of the British Army, who appears to have been taken into custody by American officers and shortly thereafter released. The Department is of the opinion that the two incidents have no essential resemblance. Major Robertson arrived in the United States as an individual and not as a part of an organized military body traveling together. The United States, therefore, in its governmental capacity as a neutral, was not bound under the principles of international law to intern him or to interfere with his freedom of movement so long as his conduct did not infringe the proprieties of international or municipal law. The Department regrets, therefore, to advise you that this Government, after having carefully reexamined the case, does not see its way to release the officers and their orderlies in question, or to consider them other than as a part of the complement of H. M. S. Geier, which the United States Government has been under the necessity of having interned during the continuance of the present war. Accept [etc.] ROBERT LANSING File No. 763.72111G27/24 The Secretary of State to the German Ambassador (Bernstorff) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 11, 1914. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 21st ultimo in regard to the internment of the German S. S. Locksun at Honolulu. In reply I have the honor to call your attention to the expression แ "part of a warship," which occurs throughout your note. I do not understand from what source this expression is derived, as I do not find it in the correspondence of the Department to you on this subject. In my note to you of the 16th ultimo it was stated that the Locksun, having been shown to have taken the part of a supply ship for the Geier, is, in the opinion of this Government, stamped with the belligerent character of that vessel, and has really become part of her equipment. This of course does not state that she is a "part of a warship." A tender is a part of the equipment of a vessel of war in the sense of acting as an auxiliary to such a vessel in the matter of carrying supplies and possibly giving other assistance. In a very real sense a vessel of war so attended may be considered as a belligerent expedition of which the tender is a part of the equipment, but to put a tender in the category of "part of a warship" is to suggest that the treatment to be accorded the tender shall be governed by the rules of contraband. In the circumstances of this case, as known by the Department, it is obliged to state that it still adheres to its previous position that the status of the Locksun as a tender to the ship of war Geier was sufficiently proved to justify her treatment as such. In this connection the Department has the honor to call to your attention the following quotation from the award of the Alabama Claims Commission, which seems to establish this principle regarding the treatment of tenders, although the application of this statement was not made to the exact circumstances of the Locksun case: And so far as relates to the vessels called the Tuscaloosa (tender to the Alabama), the Clarence, the Tacony, and the Archer (tenders to the Florida), the tribunal is unanimously of opinion that such tenders or auxiliary vessels, being properly regarded as accessories, must necessarily follow the lot of their principals and be submitted to the same decision which applies to them respectively. The entire practice of the internment of vessels appears to be of recent origin. The doctrine of internment was apparently first applied to any great extent during the Russo-Japanese war, and it is believed that the treatment of the Locksun is in keeping with the high standard of neutrality upon which the doctrine of internment is based. The Department is not aware that measures to preserve neutrality are entirely dictated by precedent and international law, and it believes that belligerents hardly have proper cause to question an attitude on neutrality justly in advance of precedent and international law, if it is applied by the neutral impartially to all belligerents. As to the advisability of assuming such an attitude, the Department is impressed with the proposition that the neutral and not the belligerent is the proper judge in the circumstances. You refer to the case of the tug F. B. Dalzell, which you state carried supplies and information to the English warship Essex from the port of New York, and suggest that this case in no wise differs from that of the steamship Locksun. In reply I have the honor to inform you that the result of this Government's investigation is to the effect that the tug Dalzell did not as a fact carry supplies and information to any British warship from the port of New York. If, however, your excellency is in possession of facts showing the contrary, the Government will be glad to be furnished with such data in order that it may renew its investigation and establish the truth in regard to the tug Dalzell, whether or not it agrees with the present finding of the Government. It will be recalled, however, that the tug Dalzell is an American vessel and therefore is not subject to internment as that term is understood in international law. This circumstance is not regarded, however, as relieving the Government from the duty of preventing the use of American ports as bases of naval operations as required by the provisions of Hague Convention XIII of 1907. Accept [etc.] W. J. BRYAN TREATMENT OF ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS-THE PROBLEM OF CONVERSION File No. 763.72111/85 The British Chargé d'Affaires (Barclay) to the Secretary of State SIR: In view of the state of war now existing between Great Britain and Germany, I have the honour, under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to make the following communication to you in respect to the arming of any merchant vessels in neutral waters: As you are aware, it is recognized that a neutral Government is bound to use due diligence to prohibit its subjects or citizens from the building and fitting out to order of belligerents, vessels intended for warlike purposes and also to prevent the departure of any such vessel from its jurisdiction. The starting point for the universal recognition of this principle was the three rules formulated in Article 6 of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of America for the amicable settlement of all causes of difference between the two countries, signed at Washington on May 8, 1871. These rules, which His Majesty's Government and the United States Government agreed to observe as between themselves in future, are as follows: A neutral government is bound First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe 66 'No date of receipt is indicated on this or the following note (No. 254), also of August 4. The reply to No. 254 states that it was presented on the following day" (August 5). As both notes bear the same date of preparation, including the notation in ink, “11 p. m.", it is to be presumed that they were presented at the same time. 2432-28- -38 is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use. Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties. The above rules may be said to have acquired the force of generally recognized rules of international law, and the first of them is reproduced almost textually in Article 8 of the Hague convention No. XIII of 1907 concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of maritime warfare, the principles of which have been agreed to by practically every maritime state. It is known, however, that Germany, with whom Great Britain is at war, favours the policy of converting her merchant vessels into armed ships on the high seas, and it is probable, therefore, that attempts will be made to equip and despatch merchantmen for such conversion from the ports of the United States. It is probable that, even if the final completion of the measures to fit out merchantmen to act as cruisers may have to be effected on the high seas, most of the preliminary arrangements will have been made before the vessels leave port, so that the warlike purpose to which they are to be put after leaving neutral waters must be more or less manifest before their departure. In calling your attention to the above-mentioned rules of the treaty of Washington and the Hague convention, I have the honour to state that His Majesty's Government will accordingly hold the United States Government responsible for any damages to British trade or shipping, or injury to British interests generally, which may be caused by such vessels having been equipped at, or departing from, United States ports. I have [etc.] COLVILLE BARCLAY File No. 763.72111/86 The British Chargé d'Affaires (Barclay) to the Secretary of State No. 254] BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, August 4, 1914.1 SIR: His Majesty's Government have been informed that the German vessel Kronprinz Wilhelm sailed from New York on the night of the 3d of August, without passengers, but with a heavy load of coal, 7,000 tons, and fitted with two long-range guns. Her superstructure had also been painted gray. All these preparations were made before the vessel left United States waters. It is a matter of common knowledge that similar preparations are being made on board other German vessels, notably the Vaterland and the Barbarossa, in United States ports, and they will no doubt attempt to adopt the same tactics as the Kronprinz Wilhelm. In view of the state of war now existing between Great Britain and Germany I have the honour, under instructions from Sir Edward Grey, to call your most serious attention to the action taken in regard to these vessels and to urge the United States Government to take immediate steps to prevent these and other such vessels leaving United States waters without passengers and after carrying out such obviously warlike preparations as described above, which, when carried out in neutral waters, constitute a distinct breach of the laws of neutrality. I have [etc.] COLVILLE BARCLAY File No. 763.72111/281 The Acting Secretary of Commerce (Sweet) to the Secretary of State DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, August 6, 1914. SIR: The following telegram was sent on the 5th instant to all of the principal collectors of customs: In pursuance my telegram of this day you are hereby instructed as follows: You will permit foreign vessels to clear only after they have filed with you their full manifests and you will at the same time notify master of each vessel that all outgoing foreign vessels will be subject to inspection of their papers and cargo by United States authorities within the territorial waters of the United States. The following telegrams were sent to the Collector of Customs at New York: Have representative of each foreign vessel in your port certify to this Department whether she is a merchant vessel intended solely for the carriage of passengers and freight, excluding munitions of war, or whether she is a part of the armed force of her nation. This information is for purpose of maintaining the neutrality of the United States under recent proclamation President. Clearance will be refused in absence of this certificate. Wire Department before issuing clearance papers to foreign vessels unless you are satisfied after careful inspection that ship has not made any preparations while in port tending in any way to her conversion into a vessel of war. Taking on abnormal amount of coal, except in case of colliers, would indicate such conversion. Unpacking of guns already on board would be conclusive. Painting of vessel a war color would indicate conversion. It must be clear that she is not to be used for transportation recruits or reserves for a foreign army or navy. This does not prevent transportation of passengers in usual sense, as where there are women and children and men of different nationalities even though among them there were a few reserves without your knowledge. If her passengers are nearly all men and practically all of same nationality, clearance cannot be granted. It must be unquestionable that she has no arms or munitions of war aboard. Respectfully, E. F. SWEET Acting Secretary |