apply the act "with the greatest possible consideration for neutral interests."

On July 18 the Official London Gazette published the names of some eighty American individuals and firms placed upon a blacklist under the Trading with the Enemy Act. (New York Times, July 19.)

Without regard to political sympathies, the whole country was aroused at what was considered a serious invasion of American independence and the sovereign rights of American merchants and foreigners domiciled in the United States to trade with either belligerent.

At Washington in "official circles" it was considered that the blacklisting of American firms (including firms of German ownership "domiciled" in the United States) was an attempt to injure the trade of an enemy at the expense of a neutral country's trade, and must be challenged. According to the views expressed by "officials," one of the greatest elements of apprehension was that American and other neutral steamship companies would refuse to transport goods of the blacklisted firms, and thus shut them off from foreign trade. (New York Times, July 20, p. 1, column 3.) At the British Embassy, on the other hand, the blacklist was regarded more in the nature of a "white" than a "black" list, since the publication of the list would remove uncertainty and permit British subjects to trade with any firm not on the list. (Ibid.)

In Great Britain also the blacklist was severely condemned in certain quarters as causing injury to British trade and being inexpedient at a moment when France was raising a loan in the United States.

The Chief of the Department of Foreign Trade of the Foreign Office, Mr. L. Worthington Evans, defended the action of the Government upon the ground of expediency. He assumed that the legality of the government's course was beyond all question.1 (New York Sun, July 23.)

The tension was somewhat relieved when the British Ambassador (July 25) gave the American Government certain as

1 It would seem that the assertion was not in conformity with the facts, whatever undisclosed arguments Mr. Evans may have at his disposal.

surances relative to the interpretation of the act. Sir Cecil Spring-Rice explained to Acting Secretary of State Polk that his Government's intention was not to direct the blacklist against neutrals, that it would not affect existing contracts,1 and that American firms would not be barred from continuing their trade with British subjects because of the fact of their having business affiliations with blacklisted firms. (New York Sun, July 26.)

In the meantime, certain of the firms placed upon the blacklist had perfected an organization to take action for the protection of their rights. The resolutions adopted (July 25), condemning the illegality, the purpose, and the means by which the blacklist was applied, were sent to President Wilson.2

In a note of July 26 (made public July 31) the American Government made an emphatic protest against the blacklist, especially in regard to the indirect effects of the boycott upon the trade of Americans having trade affiliations with the firms included in the list. The assurances of the British Ambassador upon this head were perhaps received (July 25) after the note was written.3 1 The following editorial comment from the Evening Mail indicates how necessary this explanation was:

"This story is being told in the financial district:

3

"A New York business man of prominence went to the office of the British consul. "Mr. Consul,' he said, 'I was born in the north of Ireland, and although my business is in New York, I still retain British citizenship. I owe money to Knauth, Nachod & Kuehne, the bankers. Now, that firm is on the British blacklist. If I pay the bankers I lay myself liable to prosecution when I return to the other side, as I hope to do some day. If I do not pay I shall not be discharging an honest debt, and besides K., N. & K. will have good grounds for a suit. What shall I do?'

"My dear sir,' said the consul, 'I refuse officially to answer your question, but "But what?'

666

666

"But if you care for my unofficial answer, it is pay your debt, man, 'pay your debt.'" (Evening Mail, July 27, 1916.)

2 See New York Times, July 25, August 1, 1916.

3 See the account in the New York Times, July 31, 1916. The Sun (July 30) prints the following from Washington under date of July 29:

"Sir Cecil also had another communication [the first was a 'curt message' that the British decision relative to the refusal to allow Messrs. Kelly and Smith to visit Ireland was irrevocable] to deliver to this Government. It was a formal communication from the British Foreign Office relative to the blacklisting of American firms. It makes it clear that Great Britain has already agreed to narrow the scope of the blacklist order so that it includes only the specified firms mentioned and is designed to show that any demands on this basis which this Government may make in its note, which is to be made public Monday, will simply be asking for something Great Britain already has promised to give.

"The British Ambassador made these restrictions clear to the State Department

After stating the law governing neutral rights of trade and the circumstances in which alone it is permissible for belligerents to interfere with the commerce of neutrals, the British procedure was characterized as "arbitrary and sweeping." The Government of the United States, it was declared, deemed "Great Britain to have too lightly and too frequently disregarded" the "well-defined international practices and understandings" limiting the rights of belligerents to restrict and penalize trade with their enemies.1

The most significant feature of the note is the emphasis laid upon the protection - not of American trade, but of the trade of American citizens.2

several days ago, with a view to obviating a general protest on these grounds, but after he had given the information to the State Department, unofficial forecast of the note published here and in London insisted that the President would elaborate on the injustice of not having the concessions which, according to the British view, Great Britain already has granted.

"The Ambassador is believed to have informed his Government that publication of the American note Monday morning is for reasons of domestic politics here.

"When asked about his visit to-day, Sir Cecil refused to make any comment or answer any question whatever. His silence was necessitated by a special request from the State Department that he say nothing to newspaper men.'

1 In the issue of July 24, Mr. David Lawrence, the well-informed correspondent of the Evening Post, says in reference to the note of January 25:

"Great Britain was unaffected by the American protest in this matter as she has been undisturbed, too, by American representations concerning other phases of interference with neutral trade or with neutral mails. President Wilson never had evinced the slightest intention of going beyond mere legal reservation of rights. And as for reprisals, the British Foreign Office, through its splendid information system, knew very well that the American Congress was not inclined to get tangled up in a discussion over reprisals such as an embargo on arms or foodstuffs. Even less would the Congress work itself up into a frenzy over British restrictions on American trade unless the President and executive branch of the Government showed some open sympathy with the move.

"So the British Government for many months quietly went about putting restriction after restriction on neutral trade, acting in most cases merely on a suspicion that measures could be taken in certain quarters to hurt Germany, but in reality merely following the advice of the alert British merchants who found the British Foreign Office a ready ally to their own private schemes and plans for throttling certain branches of American trade, whether or not any real connection with enemy trade existed."

2 "The Government of the United States begs to remind the Government of his Britannic Majesty that citizens of the United States are entirely within their rights in attempting to trade with the people or the Governments of any of the nations now at war, subject only to well-defined international practices and understandings which the Government of the United States deems the Government of Great Britain to have too lightly and too frequently disregarded." (Extract from the note, see

As a consequence of the publication of the blacklist, Congress made provision for recourse to reprisals. Sections 805 and 806 of the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, give the President, during the existence of a war, very wide powers of retaliatory action against unfair competition and discrimination against American trade. By section 804 of the act the President is authorized to retaliate by like action against countries prohibiting the importation of articles, "the product of the soil or industry of the United States and not injurious to health or morals." This recourse to reprisals is only in the event of prohibitions of imports and does not mention restrictions or discriminations as do sections 805 and 806. On the other hand, the exercise of the retaliatory action under section 804 is not limited to the existence of a war.

Section 26 of the Act to Establish a United States Shipping Board (approved, September 7, 1916) provides that the Shipping Board shall investigate complaints of the discriminatory action of foreign governments against American vessels. Section 36 of the same act, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to employ reprisals, is as follows:

"The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to refuse a clearance to any vessel or other vehicle laden with merchandise destined for a foreign or domestic port whenever he shall have satisfactory reason to believe that the master, owner, or other officer of such vessel or other vehicle refuses or declines to accept or receive freight or cargo in good condition tendered for such port of destination or for some intermediate port of call, together with the proper freight or transportation charges therefor, by any citizen of the United States, unless the same is fully laden and has no space accommodations for the freight or cargo so tendered, due regard being had for the proper loading of such vessel or vehicle, or unless such freight or cargo consists of merchandise for which such vessel or vehicle is not adaptable."

New York Times, July 31, 1916.) This "modification of attitude" was remarked upon in the press as a ground of criticism. (Ibid.)

CHAPTER XIII

THE DEFENSE OF NEUTRAL RIGHTS

§ 59. INDEPENDENT ACTION TAKEN BY A STATE TO ENFORCE RESPECT FOR ITS NEUTRAL RIGHTS

SWEDISH REPRISALS (1915-16)

As soon as the Swedish Government learned that the British authorities at Kirkwall had removed bags of parcels mail bound on the Stockholm (Swedish) from Sweden to the United States and from the United States to Sweden on board the Hellig Olav (Danish), it notified the British Government, on December 18, 1915, as follows:

"The Royal Government, while protesting in the most formal manner against the seizure of the parcels in question, have to their great regret felt constrained to direct the Postal Administration in Sweden to detain all goods from or to England sent by the parcels mail in transit through Sweden. This measure will be maintained by the Swedish authorities till the matter is settled in a manner which the Royal Government consider satisfactory, and a guarantee is given against the repetition of an incident of this nature, so contrary to international law." (Note of December 18, 1915, p. 2.)

The British Government complained of Sweden's course in having immediate recourse to reprisals without previous warning

1 The public was early apprised of the nature of the controversy. The New York Tribune of December 20, 1915, printed a wireless dispatch from Berlin to the effect that Sweden had ordered all parcels post from England in transit across Sweden to be held up indefinitely, thus stopping the Anglo-Russian parcels post service until Great Britain should give heed to the Swedish protest against the taking of such sacks of parcels post mail from the steamer Hellig Olav on a voyage from New York and the removal of an entire parcels post from the outgoing steamer Stockholm which left Gothenburg a few days before.