however, be enforced by the British and French Governments without risk to neutral ships or to neutral or non-combatant life and in strict observance of the dictates of humanity. The British and French Governments will therefore hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership, or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to condemnation. The treatment of vessels and cargoes which have sailed before this date will not be affected." A declaration in practically identical language was presented by the French Ambassador at the same time. Ambassador Sharpe telegraphed from Paris, March 14, an explanation relative to the retaliatory action which the Government had in view. The intentions of the French Government were made public in a Decree signed by President Poincaré on March 13, 1915, which by its terms authorized French cruisers to stop goods bound to or from Germany, either directly or by transit through adjoining territory. When belonging to neutrals, the cargoes were to be reshipped to the port of departure or sent to certain specified French ports. Property recognized as belonging to Germans was ordered placed under sequestration or sold, and the proceeds deposited to the owners' account to be held until the conclusion of peace. The Decree did not apply in the case of contraband. (Prepared from Official Documents communicated by the Department of State.) CHAPTER XII NEUTRAL RIGHTS RELATIVE TO INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, TRAVEL, AND TRADE § 56. THE FREEDOM OF INTERNATIONAL BRITISH CENSORSHIP OF CABLEGRAMS (1915) THE Department of State has made public a voluminous correspondence respecting the censorship and suppression of cable communications. The following is one instance: On May 13, 1915, Secretary of State Bryan informed Ambassador Page of the non-delivery of nine code telegrams concerning coffee shipments to the United States, giving the names and addresses, and instructed him as follows: "Bring to attention Foreign Office, pointing out suppression purely commercial cablegrams of neutral character exchanged between United States and South America can only serve as detriment to legitimate business entirely outside war zone. Request early investigation and reason in each case why message stopped, directing attention to British Government's assurance that censors were instructed last September to pass telegrams exchanged between North and South America. Please reply by cable." The Foreign Office, after some explanations, telegraphed by the American Ambassador, May 27, 1915, "concludes by saying that the attention of the censors concerned abroad, as well as in the United Kingdom, has been called to the necessity of observing the instructions already issued on this subject, and it trusts that no further inconvenience will be experienced by American firms in this respect." (American Journal of International Law, Supplement, July, 1915, pp. 312-13.) NEUTRAL MAILS (1916) FROM time to time during the European War of 1914, complaint was made that Great Britain and France were detaining and searching neutral mail-steamers in violation of international law, especially as set forth in the Hague Convention providing for the inviolability of postal correspondence. In consequence, on January 4, 1916, the Secretary of State of the United States instructed the American Ambassador at London to "lay this matter immediately before the British Government in a formal and vigorous protest and press for a discontinuance of these unwarranted interferences with inviolable mails." Specific instances were given of the seizure both of parcel mails and of "entire mails, including sealed mails and presumably the American diplomatic and consular pouches." As to parcel post articles, the State Department was inclined to regard them "as subject to same treatment as articles sent as express or freight in respect to belligerent search, seizure, and condemnation. On the other hand, parcel post articles are entitled to the usual exemptions of neutral trade, and the protests of the Government of the United States in regard to what constitutes the unlawful bringing in of ships for search in port, the illegality of socalled blockade by Great Britain, and the improper assumption of jurisdiction of vessels and cargoes apply to commerce using parcel post service for the transmission of commodities." On the seizure of mails in general, the Department could not "admit the right of British authorities to seize neutral vessels plying directly between American and neutral European ports without touching at British ports, to bring them into port, and, while there, to remove or censor mails carried by them. Modern practice generally recognizes that mails are not to be censored, confiscated, or destroyed on high seas, even when carried by belligerent mail ships. To attain same end by bringing such mail ships within British jurisdiction for purposes of search and then subjecting them to local regulations allowing censorship of mails cannot be justified on the ground of national jurisdiction. In cases where neutral mail ships merely touch at British ports, the Department believes that British authorities have no inter national right to remove the sealed mails or to censor them on board ship. Mails on such ships never rightfully come into the custody of the British mail service, and that service is entirely without responsibility for their transit or safety." The Allied Governments made reply on April 3, 1916, their respective Ambassadors being instructed to transmit identic memoranda to the Secretary of State. In these they examined the nature of the postal services as well as the reasons underlying the Hague Convention of 1907. Post parcels, in the opinion of the Allied Governments, were "clearly not withdrawn in any way from the exercise of the rights of police, supervision, visitation, and eventual seizure which belong to belligerents as to all cargoes on the high seas." In this view they were in agreement. with the Government of the United States as was shown by the correspondence over the destruction of the parcels mail on the French vessel Floride by the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich. As regards other mail, the Allied Governments cited several instances where search had disclosed "the presence in the wrappers, envelopes, and mail matter of contraband articles particularly sought after by the enemy," especially rubber. Thus the inviolability of the Hague Convention (which was not applicable according to the contention and the practice of the German Government) was being used to impose upon the postal authorities of neutral states and it would be given "a wider scope than it possesses if it were regarded as exempting from any supervision goods and articles shipped by mail, even though they were contraband of war." Inviolability applied only to "correspondence," that is to say, "missive letters." For these reasons the two Governments announced: "1. That from the standpoint of their right of visitation and eventual arrest and seizure, merchandise shipped in post parcels needs not and shall not be treated otherwise than merchandise shipped in any other manner. "2. That the inviolability of postal correspondence, stipulated by the Eleventh Convention of The Hague of 1907 does not in any way affect the right of the allied Governments to visit and, if occasion arise, arrest and seize merchandise hidden in the wrappers, envelopes, or letters contained in the mail bags. "3. That true to their engagements and respectful of genuine 'correspondence,' the Allied Governments will continue, for the present, to refrain on the high seas from seizing and confiscating such correspondence, letters, or dispatches, and will insure their speediest possible transmission as soon as the sincerity of their character shall have been ascertained." Mr. Lansing answered the joint memorandum on May 24, 1916. While agreeing with the Allied Governments that "general correspondence" mail was inviolable, the Government of the United States could not admit "that belligerents may search other private sea-borne mails for any other purpose than to discover whether they contain articles of enemy ownership carried on belligerent vessels or articles of contraband transmitted under sealed cover as letter mail, though they may intercept at sea all mails coming out of and going into ports of the enemy's coasts which are effectively blockaded." It was not, however, the principle that was the cause of difference so much as the application of the principle. The Government of the United States again had to insist "that the British and French Governments do not obtain rightful jurisdiction of ships by forcing or inducing them to visit their ports for the purpose of seizing their mails, or thereby obtain greater belligerent rights as to such ships than they could exercise on the high seas." The joint memorandum, in effect, was "merely notice that one illegal practice had been abandoned to make place for the development of another more onerous and vexatious in character." Historically, the rule was to exempt mails from visitation or detention. The interference practiced by the Allies occasioned great inconvenience and loss to neutral business; "not only are American commercial interests injured, but rights of property are violated and the rules of international law and custom are palpably disregarded." The principle, in Mr. Lansing's opinion, being "clear and definite," it remained only to state the American position in more detail, as follows: "The Government of the United States is inclined to the opinion that the class of mail matter which includes stocks, bonds, coupons, and similar securities is to be regarded as of the same nature as merchandise or other articles of property and subject |