SECTION 4. CHANGE OF POLICY IN REGARD TO LOANS TO BELLIGERENTS Shortly after the outbreak of the war it was decided by the Government, at the instance of Secretary Bryan, to discountenance and if possible to prevent loans made by American citizens to belligerent Governments. It is, of course, forbidden by international law for countries as such to lend money to belligerents, for such an act is equivalent to participation in hostilities. International law allows the citizens or subjects of neutral countries to sell supplies and to lend moneys to the belligerents, which would be improper in their Governments, drawing a clean-cut distinction between the action of the Government on the one hand and the act of the individual on the other. For some time past, however, there has been considerable discussion as to the advisability of permitting citizens or subjects of neutral countries to lend money to foreign Governments engaged in war, apparently on the theory that the act itself is unneutral, as, where one's treasure is, one's heart is likewise supposed to be, and a lender of money to a country is naturally desirous that that country be successful and may be inclined to do more than pray for its success. It is alleged that loans, in addition to being unneutral, tend to prolong the war-for is not money called the sinews of war?just as, in the same way, arms and ammunition furnished to the belligerents are said to prolong war. This may indeed be so, but if so, Secretary Lansing's defense of the manufacture, the sale, and the export of arms and ammunition by neutral subjects or citizens to belligerent countries is applicable to each transaction, and a failure to allow a country which had followed the ways of peace to borrow money on the outbreak of war with which to procure the means of defense, would be to enable the country, which had in times of peace hoarded its wealth and realized upon its credit and which was armed to the teeth, to crush its opponent before it had the opportunity of preparing itself to meet the blow. As previously stated, upon the outbreak of the war the United States frowned upon the attempts of foreign Governments to place loans in the United States, and informed prospective lenders of money that they need not expect the protection of their Government in the event of trouble with belligerents. The following notice was given out by the Department of State to the press: Inquiry having been made as to the attitude of this Government in case American bankers were asked to make loans to foreign Governments during the war in Europe, the following announcement is made: There is no reason why loans should not be made to the Governments of neutral nations, but in the judgment of this Government loans by American bankers to any foreign nation which are at war is inconsistent with the true spirit of neutrality.' An attempt was made to distinguish between loans to belligerent Governments, on the one hand, and sales of contraband on the other, but Secretary Lansing's statement in the Austrian note is to be preferred. It is better to admit frankly and without reservation that the policy in regard to loans to belligerents was changed in order to bring the policy of American citizens into harmony with international law as it then existed and as it now exists. The money market of the United States has been open to any belligerent since this change of policy. Germany has been free to avail itself of it as Great Britain and France were free. Moneys have been raised in the United States and sent to each of these countries, and German, French, and English loans have been floated in the United States. SECTION 5. INDIFFERENCE TO CONFINEMENT OF NONCOMBATANTS IN DETENTION CAMPS IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE It is dangerous as well as bad form for a neutral country to meddle in what is peculiarly regarded as the business of belligerents. It is, in the first place, difficult to determine in any given case whether a person is a combatant or a noncombatant, and it is somewhat presuming on the part of a neutral to attempt to determine for the belligerents the treatment to be accorded to noncombatants in camps in which belligerents have determined to detain them. The fact, therefore, that a neutral nation does not intervene in such matters may properly be attributed to other motives than those of indifference. And yet, notwithstanding the delicacy of the subject, the United States did, as a matter of fact, endeavor to investigate conditions in such camps, with the results stated by Secretary Bryan in the following passage of his letter to Senator Stone: As to the detention of noncombatants confined in concentration camps, all the belligerents, with perhaps the exception of Servia and Russia, have made similar complaints and those for whom this Government is acting have asked investigations, which representatives of this Government have made impartially. Their 1 Statement to the press, Dept. of State, August 16, 1914. reports have shown that the treatment of prisoners is generally as good as possible under the conditions in all countries, and that there is no more reason to say that they are mistreated in one country than in another country or that this Government has manifested an indifference in the matter. As this Department's efforts at investigations seemed to develop bitterness between the countries, the Department on November 20 sent a circular instruction to its representatives not to undertake further investigation of concentration camps. But at the special request of the German Government that Mr. Jackson, former American Minister at Bucharest, now attached to the American Embassy at Berlin, make an investigation of the prison camps in England, in addition to the investigations already made, the Department has consented to dispatch Mr. Jackson on this special mission.1 SECTION 6. FAILURE TO PREVENT TRANSSHIPMENT OF BRITISH TROOPS There can be no doubt that an attempt to send British troops or war material through the United States would be an interference on the part of British authorities with American sovereignty, and, as far as Great Britain's enemies were concerned, permission to British authorities so to do would be regarded, and properly, as a violation of neutrality. These principles are so well recognized that it seems a waste of time and space to quote them. The Convention respecting the rights and duties of neutral Powers and persons in war on land, adopted by the Second Hague Peace Conference on October 18, 1907, and ratified by most of the Powers, including Germany and the United States, provides (Article 1) that the territory of neutral Powers is inviolable and the second article provides that belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power. And in the fifth article a neutral Power is likewise forbidden to allow any of the acts referred to in Article 2 to take place within its territory. 1Official text, American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, p. 264. 2 This Convention, which was not ratified by Great Britain, contains the clause that no belligerents are bound by it unless all the belligerents are contracting parties. But in the matter of neutrality, the Convention is declaratory, not amendatory, of the law of Nations, and for this reason its provisions may be referred to in this connection. The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, pp. 133-139. On the matter of the passage of troops, Mr. Bryan thus speaks in his letter: The Department has had no specific case of the passage of convoys of troops across American territory brought to its notice. There have been rumors to this effect, but no actual facts have been presented. The transshipment of reservists of all belligerents who have requested the privilege has been permitted on condition that they travel as individuals and not as organized, uniformed, or armed bodies. The German Embassy has advised the Department that it would not be likely to avail itself of the privilege, but Germany's ally, Austria-Hungary, did so.' In regard to the shipment of war material through American territory, Secretary Bryan's note states that the question was only raised once by the Canadian Government to be denied by the United States.2 It should be said in this connection that the United States has been so solicitous to maintain its neutrality that it requested the British Government not to send by rail across the State of Maine Canadian sick and wounded returning from the war, on the ground that, although individuals might freely cross our territory, detachments stood in a different category, and this although the sick and wounded for whom permission was asked had been discharged because of unfitness for further service. SECTION 7. INTERNMENT OF GERMAN STEAMSHIP "GEIER" AND THE COLLIER "LOCKSUN" AT HONOLULU On October 15, 1914, the German gunboat Geier arrived in Honolulu, and its captain requested permission to take on coal, claiming a port in Southwest Africa as its nearest home port, and to make necessary repairs, which it was estimated would require a week to 'Official text, American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, p. 264. 2 The Collector of Customs of Juneau, Alaska, telegraphed the Treasury Department on August 31, 1914, "May shipment of war ammunition and equipment belonging to Canadian Government pass in transit through Alaska from Dawson to Vancouver?" and the Customs Division of the Treasury Department, in explanation of this request, stated that "The only way in which merchandise of any kind can pass, or does pass, between Canada and Dawson, or other points in British Yukon, is in transit across American territory under the customs regulations under which the merchandise is sealed." To this request and under these circumstances the United States answered in the negative. M88. Opinions, Joint State and Navy Neutrality Board. complete. Under the President's proclamation and in accordance with international law, men-of-war were to be allowed to enter and to remain in American jurisdiction for the period of twenty-four hours, to take on supplies necessary for immediate use, to load a sufficient quantity of coal to enable the vessel to reach the nearest home port, to remain for a longer period than twenty-four hours to make necessary repairs, and not to receive further supplies without special permission within three months unless the war vessel had, in the interval, entered a port of the Government to which it belongs. The Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, is declaratory of international law and of international practice in these matters, and its provisions are therefore quoted irrespective of the clause that it is only binding in case all the belligerents are contracting parties: Article 9. A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes. Nevertheless, a neutral Power may forbid a belligerent vessel which has failed to conform to the orders and regulations made by it, or which has violated neutrality, to enter its ports or roadsteads. Article 14. A belligerent war-ship may not prolong its stay in a neutral port beyond the permissible time except on account of damage or stress of weather. It must depart as soon as the cause of the delay is at an end. Article 17. In neutral ports and roadsteads belligerent warships may only carry out such repairs as are absolutely necessary to render them seaworthy, and may not add in any manner whatsoever to their fighting force. The local authorities of the neutral Power shall decide what repairs are necessary, and these must be carried out with the least possible delay. Article 18. Belligerent war-ships may not make use of neutral ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters for replenishing or increasing their supplies of war material or their armament, or for completing their crews. Article 19. Belligerent war-ships may only revictual in neutral ports or roadsteads to bring up their supplies to the peace standard. Similarly these vessels may only ship sufficient fuel to enable them to reach the nearest port in their own country. They may, |