Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

the Declaration of Paris, of which Great Britain is a signatory, that Government replied in kind, saying, in a formal memorandum, that it was not necessary "to discuss the extent to which the second rule of the Declaration of Paris is affected by these measures, or whether it could be held to apply at all as between Great Britain and the United States" because the United States was not and is not now a party to the Declaration of Paris.'

1Official text, American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, p. 161.

CHAPTER III

GERMAN CHARGES OF UNNEUTRAL CONDUCT

We can therefore consider the relations between the Imperial German Government and the United States, as the Nations themselves considered them, as an interesting and important chapter, with references betimes to the actions of others, but then solely by way of illustration.

We do not need to search the archives of the Department of State and to foot up the incidents or charges of unneutral conduct in the relations of the Imperial German Government and the United States, with which this chapter primarily deals, because Senator William J. Stone, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, in the following letter to the Secretary of State, dated January 8, 1915, grouped and stated the grievances of the Imperial German Government and of its sympathizers into twenty categories:

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you are aware, frequent complaints or charges are made in one form or another through the press that this Government has shown partiality to Great Britain, France, and Russia as against Germany and Austria during the present war between those Powers; in addition to which I have received numerous letters to the same effect from sympathizers with Germany and Austria. The various grounds of these complaints may be summarized and stated in the following form:

1. Freedom of communication by submarine cables, but censorship of wireless messages.

2. Submission to censorship of mails and in some cases to the repeated destruction of American letters found on neutral vessels.

3. The search of American vessels for German and Austrian subjects—

(a) On the high seas.

(b) In territorial waters of a belligerent.

4. Submission without protest to English violations of the rules regarding absolute and conditional contraband, as laid down

(a) In The Hague Conventions.

(b) In international law.

(c) In the Declaration of London.

5. Submission without protest to inclusion of copper in the list of absolute contraband.

6. Submission without protest to interference with American trade to neutral countries

(a) In conditional contraband.

(b) In absolute contraband.

7. Submission without protest to interruption of trade in conditional contraband consigned to private persons in Germany and Austria, thereby supporting the policy of Great Britain to cut off all supplies from Germany and Austria.

8. Submission to British interruption of trade in petroleum,
rubber, leather, wool, etc.

9. No interference with the sale to Great Britain and her Allies
of arms, ammunition, horses, uniforms, and other muni-
tions of war, although such sales prolong the war.
10. No suppression of sale of dumdum bullets to Great Britain.
11. British warships are permitted to lie off American ports and
intercept neutral vessels.

12. Submission without protest to disregard by Great Britain
and her allies of-

(a) American naturalization certificates.

(b) American passports.

13. Change of policy in regard to loans to belligerents

(a) General loans.

(b) Credit loans.

14. Submission to arrest of native-born Americans on neutral vessels and in British ports and their imprisonment.

15. Indifference to confinement of noncombatants in detention camps in England and France.

16. Failure to prevent transshipment of British troops and war material across the territory of the United States.

17. Treatment and final internment of German steamship Geier and the collier Locksun at Honolulu.

18. Unfairness to Germany in rules relative to coaling of warships in Panama Canal Zone.

19. Failure to protest against the modifications of the declaration of London by the British Government.

20. General unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany and Austria.

If you deem it not incompatible with the public interest I would be obliged if you would furnish me with whatever information your department may have touching these various points of complaint, or request the counselor of the State Department to send me the information, with any suggestions you or he may deem advisable to

make with respect to either the legal or political aspects of the subject. So far as informed I see no reason why all the matter I am requesting to be furnished should not be made public, to the end that the true situation may be known and misapprehensions quieted.'

To this letter, Mr. Bryan, then Secretary of State, sent a comprehensive, full, and detailed reply under date of January 24, 1917, which will be considered in connection with the discussion of the complaints contained in Senator Stone's letter.

1Official text, American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, pp. 253-255; Senate doc. 716, 63d Cong., 3d sess.

CHAPTER IV

CENSORSHIP OF COMMUNICATIONS

SECTION 1. CABLE AND WIRELESS

The first point made by Senator Stone concerns the freedom of communication by submarine cables versus censored communication by wireless. In the matter of cables, the United States decided that no messages should be sent in cipher and that plain messages should be submitted to the censorship of the authorities in order to see whether, in their opinion, the message was or was not unneutral. In the case of wireless telegraphy the station at Tuckerton, N. J., under German ownership, was closed, the station at Sayville was taken in charge by the Navy and only messages were transmitted which the censor approved. This regulation, fair in itself and applied to all the belligerents, bore more heavily upon Germany than it did upon its enemies, because Great Britain had cables of its own from Canada and did not need to rely upon the United States, whereas Germany had no direct cable to the United States, and, after the cable was cut between the Canary Islands, had no indirect communication. Recognizing, however, that a diplomat accredited to the United States should have the right of rapid communication with his Government, the Imperial German Embassy was allowed to use freely and for official purposes the station at Sayville. Absolute neutrality was maintained. by reason of the fact that all cables were uncensored, whereas all wireless news was censored; that is to say, there was no discrimination made in favor of messages sent by cable by any of the belligerents, nor was there any allegation that one country was treated differently from the other in the matter of news by wireless. Nor was there any objection apparently made because communications by cable were treated in one way, and communications by wireless in another way. The alleged discrimination existed in the fact that Great Britain preferred the use of the cable which was open to it, whereas Germany had to rely upon the wireless. Cable communications with Germany were severed, a proper belligerent act under international law, so

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »