British policy during the World War with regard to interference with neutral mails
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Gustafson, A. M. (Alburn Martin), 1908-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 30/09/2021 07:29:10
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/553365 BRITISH POLICY DURING THE WORLD W.*Jl WITH REGARD TO
INTERFERENCE WITH NEUTRa L MAILS
by
Alburn M. Gustafson
A Thesis
submitted to the faculty of the
Department of History
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
in the Graduate College
University of Arizona
1936
Approved: Major Professor Date. ilBRA'&J / ? 5 r
PREFACE
The aim of this study is to present an account of the policy of the British Government in censoring neutral mails during the World vfar. No attempt has been made by the writer to define the legality of the acts of either the
British Government or the neutral governments. However, the opinions of international lawyers regarding the status of %he mails are found in the footnotes and appendix while the opinions and convictions actually expressed at the time by the governments involved are found in the text.
Sources for the present study are largely documen tary. They consist chiefly of the correspondence carried on between the American State Department and its represen tatives abroad in the American Government publications.
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United
States and the correspondence between the governments of
Great Britain and Sweden as found.in the British Govern ment publication. The British and Foreign State Papers.
News items from The New York Times are also used but only when no better source could be found. The same is true of the secondary sources which have been used sparingly. -11-
Mo pretensions are made to offer this thesis as a complete work on the subject due to the fact that the publications of all the governments concerned are not available. Nevertheless, such material as is available has been used. Furthermore, the study itself has been limited as to its scope in order to be as complete as possible within its field, and to that extent represents a fairly complete picture.
Grateful acknowledgement is made to Dr. 0. H. V/edel for his kind assistance and encouragement. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
PREFACE ...... - ...... i
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Statement of the Problem . ...» ... . . 1 Objections by Neutral Governments to British Interference with their Mails ...... 1 Reasons Given by- the British.Government for Change in its Mail Policy ...... 3
II. THE PROBLEM-OF NEUTRAL MAILS IN RELATION TO - BRITISH POLICY FROM AUGUST 1914 TO NOVEMBER 1915 7
Measures Taken by the British Government to ' Intercept Neutral Mails Addressed to Germany and Austria by way of Great Britain ..... 7 British Adherence during the Early Period of the War to the Eleventh Hague Convention . . 9 Request of the Swedish Government that the American Government Protest to the Censoring of American Mails in England Addressed to Sweden ...... 11 The Question of British Adherence to the Universal Postal Convention of 1906 . . . . . 13 Temporary Suspension of the Parcel Post - Service between tiae United States and the Central Powers . . . i . 1 ...... 15 Plan of the American State Department to Relieve the American Government of the Task to Enforce at its own Post Offices the British Orders in Council ...... 1 6 British Complaints that Contraband was Reach ing Germany by Means of the American Postal Service ...... ; ...... 18 -iv-
Chapter Page
III. BRITISH IHTERFERSNCE WITH AMERICAN: MAILS ON. NEUTRAL VESSELS ...... 22 British Practice Regarding Blockade During the War ...... 23 Seizure of Mail from Neutral.Ships by British Authorities ...... 26 Protest of the American Government to Great Britain Concerning Seizures of American mail. 29 The Allied Reply of April 3, 1916 to the American Protest ...... 30 The American Reply of May 24, 1 9 1 6 ...... 33 The Allied Memorandum of July 22, 1916 in answer to Complaints concerning commercial losses ...... 36 The Allied Reply of October 12, 1916 .... 41 Methods used by the British Government in Censoring American Mails ...... 45 The American Point of View of (Necessity of Censorship ...... 'T v ..... 53
IV. THE BRITISH-SWEDISH CONTROVERSY OVER INTERFERENCE WITH NEUTRAL MAILS ...... 56
Removal of Mails from Scandinavian Vessels by British Authorities ...... 56 Detention by the Swedish Government of British Transit Mail to Russia ...... 57 The Swedish Protest of December 27, 1916 . . 57 The British Case Favoring Search of Neutral Mails ...... 62 Swedish Appeal to the United States for Cooperation against British Measures .... 67 British Conditions for Arbitration ..... 69 The Matter of Arbitration Dropped ...... 74
V. BRITISH INTERFERENCE WITH DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR MAILS ...... 75
British Censorship of Consular Mails During the Early Period of the World War ...... 75 German Plan to Avoid British Censorship by Means of the American Consular Service . . . 76 -V-
Chapter Page
American Proposals for Uniform Regulations for Transmission of Diplomatic and Consular Mails ...... 80 British Adherence to American Proposals for Immunity of Consular Mails ...... 88 British Departure from Granting Immunity to Consular Mails ...... 84 Decision of the British Government to Censor Diplomatic Mails ...... 85
APPENDIX ...... 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY . 95 BRITISH POLICY DURING THE WORLD WAR WITH REGARD TO
INTERFERENCE WITH NEUTRAL MAILS
■ / CHAPTER I . • ’ .
INTRODUCTION
During the World War Great Britain, being the country;chiefly concerned, naturally became the target for most of the adverse criticism by Neutral Governments for interference with their mails. In their opinion the
British Government had exceeded its belligerent rights by compelling neutral steamers to stop at British ports for the purpose of seizing and.censoring their mails in apparent contradiction of the Eleventh Hague Convention guaranteeing postal correspondence inviolability on the high seas; by seizing and censoring mails from neutral steamers that voluntarily called at British ports; and by interfering with diplomatic and consular mails.
British censorship of mails began as early as August, 1914, but was confined during the first months, of the war to transit and terminal mails destined for or
1 For status of the mails at the opening of the World 'War, see Appendix p. 89. \ 2
2 . originating In enemy territory. Except for a few ' 3 difficulties regarding mails of a consular nature and the interruption of the German-American mail service by way of 4 England, Great Britain1s mail policy at this early period was not questioned. By April 1915, however, the British
Government began censoring, transit mails sent from one 5 neutral country to another. This occasioned certain 6 protests from Sweden although it was quite generally 7 considered to be Great Britain's right.
Until November 1915 there were, on the whole.4 *
' r 2 \ ' ""; : "... : . : : r- . The Autro-Hungarian Ambassador, C. Dumba, to Sec retary of State, William J. Bryan, August 7, 1914. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1914. Supplement (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1928), pp. 531-52.
' % The British Foreign Office to John Scheepers and Co., June 23, 1916. Ibid.. 1916. Supplement, pp. 611-12. 4 The Postmaster General, A. 8. Burleson, to Sec retary of State, William J. Bryan, August 14, 1914. Ibid.. 1914. Supplement, nn. 532-33i
.... 5 .....;...... The British Foreign Office to John Scheepers and Co., June 23, 1916. Ibid.. 1916. Supplement, pp. 611-12. : ... , 6 : . . ._. . , "- ' . News item in The New York Times. June 19. 1915, p. 4. This and other references to The New York Times are used only when they are the best sources available. . 7 f ; . ^ J- . J . The British Foreign Office to John Scheepers and Co., June 23, 1916. Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, pp. 611-12. —3-»
comparatively few objections to England1s mail policy.
But in that month the British Government contemplated a radical change in its.practice which involved the examina- 8 tion of parcel and letter mails on board neutral vessels in apparent contradiction of the Eleventh Hague Convention which accorded inviolability to postal correspondence and
special treatment to mail boats... When this contemplation had become an established fact, censorship of these mails was accomplished by boarding and searching neutral vessels
that touched at British ports and by compelling others to
call at British ports which otherwise would not do so.
This new phase of British practice became of vital.impor
tance to the Government of Great Britain. It had been
brought about by the attempt of Germany to continue, by
means of the international postal service of neutral
countries, her overseas trade which had practically been
brought to a standstill by the efforts of the British ; ■: '.9 - : V ; ' - : . Navy. In this manner they had hoped to offset somewhat
the Allied restrictions with regard to blockade and 89
8 The American Ambassador in Great Britain, Walter Hines Page, to Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, December 5, 1915. Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement. p. 736. \ 9 - . , - ■ - : , ; : v : : : - James 'Wllford Garner. International Law and the World War, II (London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1920), p. .550. . 4-
contraband so as to secure certain materials and supplies essential to the conduct of war. In return it was hoped by certain German interests that exports not allowed to leave Germany, due to Government restrictions, could be sent by this means. Attempts were also made to establish credits in.foreign countries by sending through the mails mail orders, bonds, stock certificates and other instru- 10 rnents of finance. In addition the mail channels were used by the Germans to carry out a system of propaganda in other countries with the view of inciting the people of 11 India to: insurrection against the British Government.
These reasons for censoring the mails were upheld by Lord Robert Cecil, British Minister.of Blockade, in
the following words:
: The mails between neutrals continue to be filled with merchandise. Only six weeks : ago in the malls on the steamer "United ; States,from New York to Scandinavian ports, we fourai 168 packets of rubber goods, 17 of fur, two of graphite and 83 of clothing.
10 ... Ibid., pp. 350-51. . . . . 11 Ibid., P. 351. ; . V: - v:.;.::... : .
12 , ' ' ; < . ' The United States was a Danish steamer en route to America at the time of the mail seizure by the British Government in December, 1915. Formal notification of the seizures was sent to the americ-n Government December 24, 1915 by James Gerard, American Ambassador in Germany, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement. p. 739.
I -5-
boots and other miscellaneous articles. All these neutral mails also were filled with securities, transfers of money and all the. . ; machinery used by Germany in maintaining her credit* They further were filled with German ; propaganda, designed for the promotion of sedition and rebellion; not only in.countries governed^by Germany1s enemies, but In neutrals as well.^ ; As a result of such discoveries the British Govern ment felt convinced r that it had taken the proper steps in examining neutral mails; not only transit and;terminal mails; but also those on board neutral vessels plying . between the United States and the neutral European ports.
The Neutral Governments, on the other hand, felt that they had suffered an infringement of their rights.
Although they were not all certain that Great Britain had V ■ - • . . - . /■ - exceeded her rights in censoring neutral mails on her own territory, they all objected to the censorship of mails found on neutral vessels on the high seas as a violation of the Eleventh Hague Convention in that it accorded inviolability to letter mails and special treatment to 14 mail boats.
13 Lord Robert Cecil, Why Mail Censorship is Vital to Britain (An interview with the Hon; Lord Robert Cecil, British Minister of Blockade, by Arthur S. Draper of the New York Tribune) (London: James Truscott and Sons, Ltd., 1916), p. 2.
/. 14 For provisions of the Eleventh Hague Convention, see Appendix p. 89. In the following pages an attempt has been made to show the development and unfolding of British policy during the World War with regard to interference with neutral mails beginning with August, 1914. Special attention has been devoted to the following topics: "The Problem of
Neutral Mails in Relation to British Policy from August
1914 to November 1915"; "British Interference with American
Mails on Neutral Vessels"; "The British-Swedish Contro versy over Interference with Neutral Mails"; and "British
Interference with Diplomatic and Consular Mails." CHAPTER II
THE PROBLEM OF NEUTRAL MAILS IN RELATION TO BRITISH
: POLICY FROM AUGUST 1914 TO NOVEMBER 1915
Almost immediately following the outbreak of the
World War, Great Britain took measures to intercept neutral mails in transit through British territory addressed to her enemies. As early as August 7, 1914 the
Austro-Hungarian Ambassador at Washington, C. Dumba, com municated with the American Secretary of State, William J.
Bryan, suggesting that all letters going to Germany and
Austro-Hungary and addressed nvia Rotterdam11 should be sent by Dutch liners since Holland had officially pro- claimed her neutrality. Such steps had already been taken by order of the American Postmaster General, A. S.
2 ' ' ■ ' Burleson. By August 9, he was able to inform the State
Department that there was no foreign mail left on hand originating in the United States. In the note of
August 14 Mr. Burleson stated that n... since the 12
1 : : - " - ' : • The Austro-Hungarian Ambassador, C. Dumba, to the American Secretary of State, William J. Bryan, August 7, 1914, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1914: Supplement. pp. S31-32. 2 •. ■ ■ -■ - •'William J. Bryan to C. Dumba, August 10, 1914, Ibid., p. 532. —8—' outbreak of the war in Europe the mails for the various
European countries have been going forward at every oppor tunity and by the most expeditious steamers and routes available. Mails for all countries including Germany and 5 Austria are being despatched three or four times a week.n
Complaints, however, continued to be received by the State
Department to the effect that certain letters addressed to people in Germany, including American citizens, had not 4 arrived at their destination. But according to Sir Edward
Grey, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a telegram to Cecil Spring Rice, British Ambassador at Wash ington, no mail had arrived in England from the United States for Germany since August 8. Mail received on that date was returned as undeliverable, the postal communi cations between Great Britain and Germany having been 5 suspended. _.
The problem pf despatching mails from the United
States to the Central Powers without interference from4 *3
3 " — The Postmaster General, A. S. Burleson, to William J. Bryan, August 14, 1914, Ibid♦* pp. 532-33. 4 r - ; - . ■ ■■:.. " ■ v.. : ; : ' • ' - - - The Acting Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, to the British Ambassador, Cecil Spring Rice, September 25, 1914, Ibid., p. 533. . 5 . .1 -: ...... v ' :■ ■ ■ . ' - . ' : . Telegram from British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey> to Cecil Spring Rice, October 4, 1914, Ibid..p. 554. -9-
Great Britain was for the time being at least partially solved. During the early period of the World War there was a rather favorable attitude toward the inviolability of postal correspondence on the high seas guaranteed by the Eleventh Convention of The Hague Peace Conference G of 1907. " - -
At first there was some question as to Great
Britain^ adherence to the provisions of the Convention. Current press reports in -September, 1914 stated that
United States mail on the Dutch steamer Noordam had been examined and had been either seized or held up. An investigation and report was requested by Washington from the American Ambassador in Great Britain, Walter Hines
Page. As the result of an investigation-by the British
Foreign Office, Sir Edward Grey reported to Mr. Page that there had been no interference with the mails on board the
S.S. Noordam. He also said that if any of the letters in question were found to be opened when they reached their destination, he would be glad if a specimen of such 6*
6 ' . . For provisions of the Eleventh Hague Convention, see Appendix pp. 89-90.
Telegram from the Acting.Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, to the American ambassador in Great Britain, Walter Hines Page, September 81, 1914, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1914. p. 833. . .. -10-
6 envelopes could be submitted for further investigation.
It seemed apparent that the British Government at this time was not interfering with neutral mails on board neutral mail steamers, Mr. Bryan, Secretary of State, was also of that opinion. On January 20, 1915 in a letter addressed to William J. atone, Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he wrote the following;
It has been asserted that American mail on board Dutch steamers has been repeatedly des troyed. Mo evidence to this effect has been : filed with the Government, and therefore no representations have been made. Until such a case has been presented in concrete form this Government would not be justified in present ing the matter to the offending belligerent. Complaints have come to the department that mail on board neutral steamers has been opened and detained, but there seem to be few cases where the mail from neutral coun tries has not been finally delivered. When mail is sent to belligerent countries open and is of a neutral and private character, it has not been molested so far as the department is advised.89 *-
Although American mails intended for the Central Powers were no longer routed by way of Great Britain, this was not true of all the mail sent to the Northern
European Neutrals. The same as before the war much of it
8 • Telegram from Walter Hines Page to William J. Bryan, October 12, 1914, Ibid., p. 554.
9 % ' William J. Bryan, "United States Fair to All,” Tne New York Times Current History The European War II, p. 1176. -11-
was dispatched by way of England. This was likewise true of mails en route to the United States. By June, 1915 the
Swedish Government felt reasonably sure that the British
Government was censoring these mails and made this the basis for an official protest to the American Government by W. A. F. Ekengren, Swedish Minister to the United 10 States. It was understood that an official protest had 11 also been made to the British Foreign Office. The specific mail in question comprised letters, private and registered, sent by the Swedish Legation in Washington to places in Sweden. It was not alleged that any of the official diplomatic mall pouches had been opened. Mr.
Ekengren1s note stated that United States mail pouches destined for Sweden had been "violated" in England, that letters had been opened;and censored, and that one regis- . v 12 tered "unit" had been retained. In view of these interferences the American State Department was asked by the Swedish Government to take appropriate action.
Action was taken, but not in the nature of a diplomatic 10*12
10 News item in The New York Times. June 19, 1915,
' 11 News item. Ibid.. June 25, 1915, p. 12. 12 "A registered unit consists of letters or packages sealed up in one parcel for delivery at a given destina tion." The New York Times. June 19. 1915, p. 4. -12-
protest to the British Government. The United States
Post Office Department on June 24, 1915 directed that all mail from the United States destined for Norway, Sweden,
Denmark, and the Netherlands be dispatched on steamers sailing directly for those countries and not touching at 13 belligerent ports. The Department also decided to make
a general inquiry regarding the alleged tampering with 14 mails both at home and abroad.
It was not generally believed in the United States
that Great Britain had exceeded her belligerent rights in
censoring transit mails although outwardly neutral in 15 character. Consequently for the time being no
13 - News item in The New York Times. June 25, 1815, p. 12. ..The order was apparently-not at once, carried out.
14 ■ ■. - - V :" - : hoc. Cit. ' ..'is;; " ' : ' The United States Government has admitted the right of a belligerent to censor mails passing through its territory. This is explained in the following, quoted from a news item in The Hew York Times, June 19, 1915, p. 4:
In 1895, Richard Olney while serving as Sec retary of State, had such a case called to his attention when the Turkish authorities sought to exclude from the Turkish mails a journal pub lished in this country because it was objection able. In passing upon the subject, Secretary Olney held that:
_ By Article XVI of the Universal Postal Union Convention of July 4, 1891, dhis right was reaffirmed by the revised —13
representations were made to the British Government. On
August 5, 1915 it was reported 5y the United States State
Department that no treaties could be invoked to prevent 16 censorship of mails sent through England. However, it was the opinion of the Post Office Department that according to Article 1 of the Post Office Convention of .
1906 it should have been notified by the British Postal
Administration of any intention to censor neutral mails 17 . on British territory. In October of 1915 the American
Universal Postal Convention of 189%) each signatory Government reserved to itself the right to refuse to convey over its territory or to deliver matter contravening the legal enact ments or regulations in force in its jurisdiction.
According to the same article in The New York Times, the British Government is a signatory party of the Universal Postal Union Convention and its Orders in Council, effective as law by Act of Parliament, contained definite provisions relative to censorship and the mails in England. :
: is , . ■ . - . Hews item in The New York Times. August 6, 1915, P* 1* ' " : : ' : . ; :: : - . 17 ..... According to Article 1 of the Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention of 1906, an Administration that is obliged by exceptional circumstances to suspend temporarily the dispatch of closed mails and articles in open-mail delivered to it by another Administration is bound to notify the fact at once, if necessary by telegraph, to the other Administrations concerned. Universal Postal Convention, May 26, 1906, United States Department of State, United States Statutes at Large (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1909), p. 1679. -14-
State Department was Informed by the Postmaster General that sealed letter Bail was being opened, censored, and in some instances retained. Consequently a complaint was made to Cecil Spring Rice, in a personal interview by
Robert Lansing, the new" Secretary of State, reminding him of the American view of Article 1 of the 1906 Post Office 18 Convention.
In answer to the American complaint the British Foreign Office stated that the British Postmaster General had replied on July 28, 1915 and October 18, 1915 to communications on the subject sent by the United States
Postal Administration. It further stated that:
As regards the question of notifying, under article 1 of the detailed regulations for the execution of the postal convention, the inten tion of the British authorities to exercise a censorship in the case of mails passing through their hands, the British authorities are of opinion that the regulation in question cannot be held to be applicable to the case of the : introduction of a censorship of this nature by a belligerent state.
To this communication the American Government
apparently made no reply. To all appearances, it now
admitted Great Britain’s right to Introduce and carry on 18*
18 Telegram from Robert Lansing to Walter Hines Page, November 4, 1915, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement. p. 734.
- 19 . : . - Memorandum from Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, November 26, 1915, Ibid.. p. 735. -15-
censorship of mails...in her own territory regardless of their origin or destination.
At the opening of the World War there was little opportunity for the problem.to arise regarding British
Interference with parcel post mails. Soon after the beginning of hostilities parcel post service with Germany and Austro-Hungary, as well as with France and Belgium, was temporarily suspended due to the Inability of those 20 countries to carry on the service from their side.
Germany, realizing the situation, had requested the sus pension, but a similar request was not made by Austrc-
Hungary. In the latter case the suspension was caused by 21 circumstances alone. On November 50, 1914 at the
announcement of Postmaster General Burleson the service
with Germany and Austro-Hungary was resumed.
Due to the fact that the German merchant marine had
been swept,from the seas and that there was no American
line sailing directly from the United States to Germany,* 21
. 20 - ; Post Office Department, Post Office Department Annual Report 1915 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916), p. 10.
21 , ■'. '1 ■'- . - v - - News item in The New York Times. December 1,
■ 22 . . . Loc. Cit. and Post Office Department, Op. Cit., p. 10. — —lo—
it was now necessary to dispatch parcel post mails on a nautral steamship line. The Netherlands consented to handle these mails on condition that the United States
Post Office Department would guarantee the exclusion of " 23 contraband of war. This the Department was willing to do in accordance with the British contraband list of 24 October 23, 1314. Articles designated as absolute
contraband were to be completely excluded from the parcel mails addressed to the Central Powers, but articles designated as conditional contraband were to be permitted
except when destined to the governments or armies of 25 Britain’s enemies.
However, the guarantee of the Post Office Depart
ment to exclude absolute contraband and to admit under
certain conditions conditional contraband could be the
source of friction between the American and British
Governments. The inviolability of postal correspondence 2523*
23 Memorandum of the Post Office Department, March 18, 1315, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement. pp. 751-32.
.24 The State Department did not commit itself as to the validity of the British Orders in Council of October 29, 1914, Ibid., p. 732. 25 Memorandum of the Post Office Department, March 18, 1915, Ibid., pp. 731-52. -17-
on the high seas as provided by the Eleventh Hague Con vention was not applicable to parcels mails and neither did the Convention exempt neutral mail ships from the laws and customs of maritime war entailing the right of visit and search. A plan was evolved by the State Department and approved by the president whereby the United States
Government might be relieved of the ’’difficult and deli cate task* of enforcing at its post offices the British
Orders in Council. The plan as it was submitted to the Post Office Department, March 22, 1915, was to announce: 26 First. that so far as the action of the belligerent countries is concerned, and rules ; which apply .to merchandise sent by freight or _ / express shall apply also to merchandise sent bv mall and secondly, that merchandise : deposited at the various post offices to be sent into belligerent territory, will be . :. accepted and sent at the sender1 s risk.*5?
This plan conceded the right of belligerents to deal with merchandise sent by mail the same as with merchandise sent by other means. The question of for feiture involved in discovery of contraband during visit and search would be left to the decision of the prize courts. In the opinion of. the Secretary of State care 26*
26 The italics are in the original text.
- - 27 ....• ... -v ' William J. Bryan to A. S. Burleson, March 22, 1915, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement. p. 732. -18-
could be taken to have merchandise sent by parcel post put up In packages separate from ordinary mall 8so that any action taken in regard to merchandise need not delay 28 or embarrass the regular traffic.8
During the summer of 1915 the parcel post service between the United States and Germany was conducted with out interference from Great Britain. On July 30, 1915 the
Postmaster General announced by letter to the Secretary of
State that the Post Office Department had 8no reason to believe that parcel post sails from Germany to this country or from this country to Germany have been inter- ■ • : ■ ' ■ " \ - ■ 29 fered with by any intervening country.8 On August 25 the American State Department was able to inform the
British Ambassador at Washington that contraband articles were excluded from parcel post mails destined for Germany and Austro-Hungary. But in October British complaints were received to the effect that contraband was actually 302829
28 - - ..... :■ - Ibid.. p^ 732. The plan was apparently net carried out. The Post Office Department continued to vouch for the absence of contraband in the mails. Mr. Bryan's suggestion that parcels could be put up in packages separate from.ordinary mail was not followed.
29 A. S. Burleson to Robert Lansing, July 30, 1915, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915, Supplement. pp. 732-33.
30 :: - - .. - Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, October 5, 1915, Ibid.. p. 733. -19-
being sent through the mails. Twice during that month
Cecil Spring Bice wrote to Robert Lansing in respect to the matter. In his first letter, dated October 5, 1915, . he stated:
I am informed on good authority that a ship ment of some six tons of tungsten ore is being sent from Hew York to Germany by parcels post in canvas bags weighing not more than 10g pounds gross each. The names of the addresses in Germany have not been ascertained but the dis patch of the goods is being attended to by the Snow United States Express Company of 17 Battery Place . . . • Tungsten-ore'- is "covered fin •‘the British contra band list by the designations wolfram and scheelite.^1
again on October 12, 1915 he wrote:
-The Hex Chemical Company of Broadway, New York, are said to be shipping large quantities - of'(mineral slag* by parcel post. The Traum Rubber Company, of Broadway, are said to be shipping large quantities of rubber by parcel post formerly under the designation of (Printing Material Compound1 and lately of •Rubber Stamp Material.* Large consignments of strong heavily made shoes suitable for military use have also been . sent by parcel post and the size and number of these shipments would appear to indicate an organized attempt to evade, by the use of the United States mails, the legitimate efforts of the Allied Governments to prevent contraband articles from reaching Germany and Austria.^ *
■ 31 Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, October 5, 1915. Ibid.. n. 733.
32 Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, October 12, 1915. Ibid., nu. 735-54. -20-
In answer to the complaint regarding parcel post shipments regarding.tungsten, Lansing forwarded to
Spring Rice a statement pertaining to the subject by the
Postmaster of New York City; _ : 1
••'All'v-parcel-post:.packages. destined for Ger many are examined here and it can be positively stated that the tungsten ore referred to herein has not been dispatched to Germany. The reply to the second complaint of October 12,
1915 also denied that contraband had been sent with the exception of shoes which were considered to be on the conditional contraband list, but were shipped to private parties in (Mrmany and Austria. It was admitted that mineral slag had been sent, but it was pointed out
that it was not listed as either absolute or conditional contraband.
Thus far the British authorities had made no
attempts to apply the belligerent right of visit and *33
33 Robert Lansing to Cecil Spring Rice, November 8, 1915, Ibid.. pc. 734-35.
54 . - : . -: , -■ Shoes, if suitable for use in war, were placed on the conditional contraband list by British Orders in Council August 4, 1914. Rubber was placed on the absolute contraband list October 29, 1914. American Journal of International Law X (October. 1916), pp. 38 and 47.
Robert Lansing to Cecil Spring Rice, December 8, 1915. Foreign Relations of the United States. m m . p• 7o7• —21-
search to American parcel mails destined for Holland or any of the other neutral European countries. But the parcel post on board the Holland-American Line sailing from the Netherlands directly to the United States was reported Interfered with by Great Britain in October, 1915 due to the fact that it included German parcel =, 36 - . .. . . mails. As a result of this interference the Holland-
American Line notified the German Government that it would no longer carry German parcel post. Consequently, on October 25 it was announced by the German Postal
Administration that the service from Germany to the
United States was suspended. However, it continued in effect until early December, 1915 from the United States to Germany. But the British still hesitated to search
American mails destined directly for other countries for fear of causing friction with the United States Govern ment, since these malls remained American property as long as they were on the high seas. *38
56 .... ' " ' ' ' ' News item in The New York Times. November 11,
- 57 . ' ' ' ' : ; ■ News item in The New York Times. October 27,
38 ' " That the British hesitated to search American mails for fear of causing friction was a report made by The New York Times. November 11. 1915, p. 7. CHAPTER III
BRITISH INTERFERENCE WITH AMERICAN MAILS ON NEUTRAL VESSELS
In November, 1915 the British Government seriously considered the possibility of making a radical change in its mail policy. Heretofore it had confined its activities chiefly to censoring neutral mails in transit
through its territory and to protesting the use of parcel
post for sending contraband to Germany and Austria.
Already in October, 1915 there had seemed to be sufficient
interference by the British on the high seas of parcel
mails sent from the Netherlands to cause the Holland-
American Line to refuse longer to carry German parcel I* post. For several months it had been the opinion of Great Britain that contraband of war was actually being
sent from neutral countries to Germany by means of the
international parcel post service by way of the neutrals
of Northern Europe. It was also the Opinion of Great
Britain that goods sent by parcel post deserved no
better treatment than merchandise sent by other means
and were consequently subject to the usual customs of
maritime war. Parcel mails, unlike postal correspondence,
1 See above, p. 21. -23-
v?ere not granted inviolability by the Eleventh Hague 2 Convention. Moreover, even postal correspondence was not granted inviolability if "destined for or proceed- ■ ' 5 ' ing from a blockaded port.*
In considering making a change in her mail policy.
Great Britain apparently had in mind extending the
British rules of blockade to include both ordinary mails and parcel post on the high seas. British practice in regard to blockade during the War is admirably set forth by W. E. Hume-Y/illiams in his pamphlet entitled Inter national Law and the Blockade. The following excerpts
show British procedure, provided by Orders in Council, upon which the new mail policy, as touching parcel post, would be based:
The English appear to have discovered quite early in the war— for them— namely, by August 20th, 1914, the danger with which they were threatened, and consequently on that date an Order in Council was published which, after adopting the Provisions of the Declaration of London, provided that the "destination^ referred to in Article 53 of the Declaration— that is destination for the use of the armed forces or of a government department of the
.... : ■ % For Articles 1 and 2 of the Eleventh Hague Convention, see Appendix pp. 89-90.
5 Loc. Clt.
4 Concluded from later practice. See below, pp. 24-28. -24-
enemy State— may be inferred from any sufficient evidence, and should be presumed to exist Rif the goods are consigned to or for an agent of the enemy state or to or for a merchant or other person under the control of the authorities of the enemy state.n . By Clause 5 of the August 20 Order, Eng land further provided that conditional contraband goods, if shown to have the des tination set out in Article 33, are liable to capture "to whatever port the vessel is bound and at whatever port the cargo is to be discharged.".
England had recourse to another Order in Council. On October 29th she declared that "conditional contraband shall be liable to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port if the goods are consigned ♦to order* or if the ship1s papers do not show who is the consignee of the goods or if they show a consignee of the goods in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy.The owners of the goods may, however, by Article 4 of the same Order, in such case prove, if they can, that the ultimate destination of the goods was innocent. France and Russia adopted this 6 Order in Council and issued similar decrees.
The first official information received by any of the neutral countries that Great Britain was considering
5 Actually in practice the British Government seized parcels addressed to Sweden and to Swedish con signees thinking they had an ultimate enemy destination, Swedish note to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, British and Foreign State Papers. CX (1916) (cd 8322), Great Britain Foreign Office (London: His Majesty*s Stationery Office, 1916), pp. 535-38. 0 : . - V/. E. Hume-Y/illiams, International Law and the Blockade (London: Sir Joseph Couston and Sons, Limited, 1910), pp. 3-5. -25-
the possibility of making a change In her mail policy was that given J. J . Louden, Netherland Minister of
Foreign Affairs. On November 28, 1915 the British
Minister at The Hague informed Mr. Louden that the Brit ish Government was considering the possibility of no : 7 longer respecting mails on neutral ships. A similar statement was to be made to the other neutral Govern ments . Secretary Lansing, however, received his first 8 knowledge of the matter not from Cecil Spring Rice but from the Netherland Minister, W.L. F. C. Van
Rappard, who had been informed by his Minister of
Foreign Affairs by cable. Due to an error in Mr.
Louden1s cablegram the word "intention* was used in place of "possibility" in regard to Great Britain no 10 longer respecting mails on neutral ships. On
7 The information was obtained from the note sent by the Netherland Minister at Washington, W. L. F. C. Van Rappard, to Robert Limsing, December 13, 1915. Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement, p. 737.
8 The note to the British Ambassador at Washington was sent by mail and consequently was longer in arriving than the cablegram received by the Netherland Minister.
. a V. r". V V . Robert Lansing to Walter Hines Page, December 1, 1915. Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement, p. 735.
10 . - ■ - , " W. L. F. C. Van Rappard to Robert Lansing, December 13, 1915, Ibid., p. 757. -25-
Decercber 3, 1915 the mistake was rectified when W. H.
Page reported the following In a telegram to Robert
Lansing:
British Minister at The Hague made no such statement of intention as that contained in your telegram under acknowledgement. In con versation with Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs he merely foreshadowed the possibility of British Government being driven to make that change. A 'request - for a similar report was mailed to Spring Rice about a week A g o . v;-..
• The possibility that was foreshadowed soon became a reality^ The first class-German mails were removed on 12 December 5, 1915 from the Dutch steamer floor dam bound
for New York. Four days later on December 9 the
American mails on board another Dutch steamer, Frisia. were practically removed when entering-the Channel home- 15 ward bound to Amsterdam. This was soon followed by the
removal’of 30v"bags of American mails, destined for
■ • . 11 ' ' ■ _ :: : : .... Walter Hines Page to Robert Lansing, December 3, 1915, Ibid., p. 736.
: 12 ...... : ...... The dates for the seizures were obtained from Recuell de diverse communications du Mlnisterie des Affaires Btrangers Aux Etats-Generaux par rapport a la neutral!te des Pavs-Bas et au respect du Droit des Gens. p. SO, cited by Amry Vandenbosch, The Neutrality of the Netherlands During the World War (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1927), p. 255.
A, 13 " ' ^ - . . W. L. F. C. Van Rappard to Robert Lansing, December 13, 1515, Foreign Relations of the United -States. 1915. Supplement. p. 737. - 27-
Sweden, from the Danish steamer. Hellig Olav. at Kirk- 14 wall. On December 16 the Swedish steamer Stockholm was also detained at Kirkwall and was relieved by the
British of fifty-eight bags of parcel post intended for 15 the United States. The Swedish Minister, W. A. F.
Ekengren, in his note of December 16, 1915 to Secretary
Lansing stated that the Swedish Government had lodged a protest on this account with the British Government and had issued an order to the Swedish Postmaster General
"to detain for the present, articles that, per parcel post, pass through Sweden in transit, either to or from
England." He also said that Mr. Wallenberg, Swedish
Minister for Foreign Affairs, directed him to suggest that representations be made at London by the United
States Government in regard to the mail sacks taken from the S.S. Helllg Olav bearing the United States Seal.
On the day following the receipt of the Swedish note, Ira Nelson Morris, American Minister in Sweden, announced by cable that the British authorities had
" 14 . 1 -• - - - - Telegram from the American Minister in Sweden, Ira N. Morris, to Robert Lansing, December 14, 1915, Ibid.. p. 738.
■■■ 15 ■: „ . The Swedish Minister at Washington, W. A. F. Ekengren, to Robert Lansing, December 18, 1915, Ibid.. p. 738.
16 Lo g . Cit. SB-
removed all the Scandinavian parcel .post from the S.S.
Oscar II en route to Scandinavia. He further announced
that the parcel post traffic to America had been 17 temporarily interrupted.
Other mail seizures by the British in December,.
1915 were made on board the Danish steamers Frederick 18 19 VIII and the United States and on board the Hether- 20 land steamers Noorderdljk and Nleuw Aasterdam... The
' entire mail from the United States to the Motherlands
had been taken.from the Nleuw Amsterdam at Falmouth.
The Noorderdljk was boarded at the Downs and suffered
the loss of part of its mail. In-reporting these
last two seizures, the American Minister to the Nether
lands, Henry Van Dyke, added:
I am convinced that a prompt peremptory protest to the British Government is neces sary to prevent recurrence of this act of *2017
17 ... ■ . . . . . : " . Telegram from Ira N. Morris to Robert Lansing, December 19, 1915, Ibid.. p. 739.; .
Telegram from the Consul General at London, Robert P. Skinner, to Robert Lansing, December 24, 1915, Ibid., p. 739.
19; - . . . Telegram from the American Ambassador in Germany James W. Gerard, to Robert Lansing, December 24, 1915, Ibid., p. 739. .
20 Telegram from the American Minister in the Netherlands, Henry Van Dyke, to Robert Lansing, December 28, 1915, Ibid.. pp. 739-40. -29-
violence and to protect the dignity of to© United States. If the protest is disre- p1 garded, I believe reprisals should be made.^
The American State Department was also of the opinion that protests to the British Government were in order. In a cablegram to Ambassador Page on January 4,
1916, Lansing asked that the matter of parcel post be brought formally to the attention of the British Govern ment. Although the State Depar then t was Inclined to regard parcel post articles as subject to the sane treat ment as merchandise sent by other means, it did feel that
they were entitled to the usual exemptions of neutral
trade, as for censoring and removing American mails carried on neutral vessels. Secretary Lansing added:
The Department can 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, con fiscated, or destroyed on high seas, even when carried by belligerent mail ships. To attain same end by bringing such mall ships within British jurisdiction for purposes of search and. then subjecting them to local .. regulations allowing censorship of mail can not 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 international right to remove the
21 Telegram from Henry Van Dyke to Robert Lansing, December 28. 1915. Ibid., pp. 739-40. -30-
sealed mails or to censor them on board ships. Mails on such ships never rightfully come into the custody of the British mail service, and that service is entirely without Respon sibility for their transit or safety. ^
The matter concerning the loss of valuable letters, money orders, and drafts was also to be brought to the attention of the British Government as foreign banks were refusing to cash American drafts due to the insecurity of the mails. Moreover, the detention of consular and diplomatic mails' was of concern and a protest of such action was to. be included in the representations made by 23 the..American- Ambassador at London.
The American protest to British treatment of
American mails was formally brought to the attention of the British Foreign Office. But Sir Edward Grey, in acknowledging the receipt of the American note, stated that before his Government could send a reply, it would 24 be necessary to communicate with the French Government.
A joint reply by the two governments was sent simultaneously on April 3, 1916 to the Secretary of *24
. 22 . . : : ■ : „ Telegram from Robert Lansing to Walter Hines Page, January 4, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement. pp. 591-92.
, 25 . ' Loc.. Git,.
24 Telegram from Walter Hines Page to Robert Lansing, January 25, 1916, Ibid.. d . 593. —51—
State by both the British and French Ambassadors. It included an enclosure, dated February 15, 1916, entitled "Memorandum Relative to Postal Correspondence on the High Seas.n It was expressed by the Allied
Governments that parcels were not granted inviolability by Article 1 of the Eleventh Hague Convention:
In no wise do such "parcels" constitute "lettersH or "correspondence" or "dispatches," and they are 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.%5
With regard to forwarding letters, wrappers, and envelopes, it was stated in the Memorandum that German and Austro-Hungarian naval authorities destroyed with out previous warning or visitation, thirteen mail ships, with mail bags on board, destined for or coming from neutral or Allied countries. Moreover, on August 11,
17, and 18, 1915, the Germans seized on the high seas mail bags on board the Norwegian steamers. Iris and
Haakon VII. and the Swedish steamer, Germania. The letters and correspondence thus seized were censored and proof of this was submitted in the form of enclosed photographs. Although understanding that the Imperial
German Government had announced its Intention to desist
25 Memorandum Relative to Postal Correspondence on the High Seas, February 15, 1916, Ibid., pp. 599-601. -32—
from such seizures, the Allied Governments made mention of the fact that Germany had taken the position that the
Eleventh Hague Convention was inapplicable due to not having been ratified by all the belligerent powers,.
As touching contraband the following was stated by the.Allied Governments:
Finally, the supervision within the terri tories of the Allies of various mail bags shipped on mail steamers that call at certain ports in the said territories more recently disclosed the presence in the wrappers, envel opes, and mail matter of contraband articles . particularly sought after by the enemy .
Hostile traffic, shut out of mastery of the seas, thus resorted to hiding in mail- matter in order to get through all kinds of merchandise . . . by imposing on the post office departments of neutral states.
Under the foregoing conditions it was announced by
the.Allied Governments:
1. That from the standpoint of their right of visitation and eventual arrest and seizure, merchandise shipped in post parcels need not and shall not be treated otherwise than mer chandise 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 effect 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
26 Memorandum, February 15, 1916, Ibid.. p p . 599- 0 0 1 . Allied GoverrmentH 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.*”
In the American reply of May 24, 1916 Secretary
Lansing made specific reference to the three Allied announcements. He said that the Allied powers appeared to have overlooked the admission of the United States
that "post parcels may be treated as merchandise subject
to the exercise of belligerent rights as recognized by
international law." But the Government of the United
States would not admit the assertion that such parcels
are subject to the "exercise of the rights.of police,
supervision, visitation, and eventual seizure which
belongs to belligerents as to all cargoes on the high 29 Seas." .. ' " : - -" • ■ : " . " - ■
' \ for the assertion in respect to the Allied
engagements to continue for the present to refrain from
seizing and confiscating certain correspondence, letters.29* 28
2 7 - Memorandum, February 15, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 599 601.
28 The italics are used in the original text.
29 ; • ; ■ . ■ ■■ ^ "" " • Robert Lansing to the French Ambassador at Washington, J. A. Jusserand, May 24, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement. pp. 604-08. -34-
and dispatches on the high seas, Lansing replied:
Though giving assurances that they consider ngenuine correspondenceM to be "inviolable," and that they will be "true to their engage ments, n refrain "on the high seas" from seiz ing and confiscating such correspondence, the Allied Governments proceed to deprive neutral governments of the benefits of these assurances by seizing and confiscating mails from vessels in port instead of at,sea. They compel ; ^ neutral ships without just cause to enter their own ports or they induce shipping lines, through some form of duress, to send their mail ships via British ports, or they detain all vessels merely calling at British ports, thus acquiring by force or unjustifiable means an Illegal jurisdiction. Acting upon this enforced jurisdiction, the authorities remove , all mails, genuine correspondence as well as post parcels, take them to London, where every piece, even though of neutral origin and destination, is opened and critically examined to determine the "sincerity of their character" in accordance with the interpretation given . . that undefined phrase by the British and French censors. Finally the expurgated remainder is ; forwarded, frequently .after irreparable delay, to its destination.^0
The present practice, it was stated, was a violation not only of the spirit of the announcement of
February 15, 1916 but also of the "rule" of The.Hague
Convention upon which it was concededly based. Other than that it was a violation of the prior practice of nations which Great Britain and France had in the past 30
30 ... . " 'a: / ■ : ' ;/v a; Robert Lansing to J. A. Jusserand, May 24, laifij Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, pp. 604-08. . \ -6b-
31 assisted to establish and maintain. As a result of these arbitrary methods the citizens of the United States had suffered great losses. Specific mention was made of the loss by the Macniff Horticultural Company of Hew York of large shipments of plants and bulbs from Holland.
They.were frozen on the wharves, according to information
received by the State Department, because possession
could not be obtained in the absence of shipping docu ments which had been removed from the Nieuw Amsterdam.
Oosterdilk and Rotterdam. Mentioned also was the case
of the Standard Underground Cable Company of Pittsburgh
which lost a contract for certain electrical works in
Christiania to a British competitor due to its tender *
. : . ' 31 : . : - . ' -. • - nDuring the war between the United States and Mexico the United States forces allowed British steamers to enter and depart from the port of Vera Cruz without molesting mails intended for inland points. During the American Civil War Lord Russel endeavored to induce the United States to concede that 'Her Majesty's mails on board a private vessel should be exempted from visitation or detention.' . . . On October 51 1862 Secretary Seward announced that 'public mails of any friendly or neutral power duly certified or authenti cated as such shall not be searched or opened but be put as speedily as may be convenient on the way to their designated destinations.* . . . The same rule was followed by France as I am advised, in the Franco- Prussian War of 1870; by the United States in the Spanish-American War of 1898; by Great Britain in the South African war, in the case of the German mail steamers Bundesrath and General: by JPapan and substantially by Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904,R Robert Lansing in the American Note to the Allied Governments, May 24, 1916. Ibid., pp . 604-08. —36—
and specifications not arriving in the mails before the bids were closed. HNot only are American commercial interests injured," said Secretary Lansing, "but rights 32 of property are disregarded. In view, of the methods used by both Great Britain and France, it was officially expressed that the American Government could no longer tolerate the wrongs that its citizens had suffered and Ov continued to suffer.
A reply by the British and French Governments to the American note of May 24 was not received until October
12, 1916, but a memorandum was submitted July 22 to the
United States State Department in answer to the complaints . . . ■j54- - - . . ■ concerning commercial losses. In this memorandum it was stated that the shipping documents relating to the perish able goods namely, plants and bulbs frozen on the wharves were removed for examination together with other mails from the Nieuw Amsterdam. Oosterdiik and Rotterdam on
February 10, 17, and 25, 1916. All of the mails removed ware forwarded-on the Lapland. Cameronia. and the Cedric.
The Cedric. the last to go, sailed on March 8, 1916. It34 3332
32 ... ■ : Ibid.. pp. 604-08.
33 ■ " y ... Loc. Cit. 34 Memorandum, July 20, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 613-14. was not until March 28, 1916 that a note was received from the United States Ambassador enclosing a copy of a letter from the Macniff Horticultural Company anticipating difficulties with regard to their shipments, the first of which was due to arrive about the beginning of March.
Immediately on receipt of the Ambassador^ note the
possibility of preventing such losses was considered by
the British Government. A reply, according to the Memo
randum was sent to the American Ambassador (W. H. Page) offering to place a special censorship staff at ports of
call to examine separate mail bags labelled "shipping
documents" and to reforward such documents by the same ship
without including them with the rest of the mall. When
specific Complaints were made, action was taken immediately
to-prevent loss to neutral interests. "The loss sustained
by the Macniff Horticultural Company . . .was due to the
specific complaint not having reached His Majesty*s Govern- ■ ...... ' . - 35 ment in time to enable them to apply the new system to 36 this firm^s shipments."
The Memorandum also referred to the remarks of the
American Government concerning the loss of contract by the
Standard Underground Cable Company of Pittsburgh. It *36
The system was put into effect.
36 Memorandum, May 20, 1916, United States. 1916. Supplement. pp. 613-14. -38-
stated that the United States Government appeared "to
insinuateH that the delay of this company^ mail to
Christiania was directly connected with the fact that a
British competitor obtained the contract which the
American company wanted. The British Government was
astonished, for out of seven contracts placed by the
Municipal Electric Works of Christiania five were allowed
to American firms and only two to British firms. In
spite of the extremely dangerous nature of consignments
of copper to Scandinavia, in view of German attempts to
obtain that article, the British Government went out of
its way to facilitate the shipment from the United States
to Norway of the goods necessary to carry out the
American contracts.
The British Government did not believe that its
censors had anything to do with the delay of the American
company^ tender in reaching Norway. The call for tenders
was issued on February 14, 1916 and the specified date
for closing was noon, March 30, 1916; The Memorandum
stated: .
As the first direct inward-bound mails from the United States for Scandinavia on ships pass ing round the north of Scotland removed for examination by the British censorship were those of the liellig Olav which called at Kirkwall on
37 Memorandum, May 20. 1916. Ibid.. p p . 613-14. -39-
March 28,*-° it is difficult to understand the assertion made by the United States Govern ment that owing to the detention by the British censorship of the Standard Underground Cable Company’s tender, the contract JwasJ.y awarded to a British competitor . .
There seems to have been certain allegations in the american press that American trade was being captured by the British through their censorship of the mails.
On August 18, 1916 Cecil Spring Rice forwarded a com munication from Lord Grey dealing with the matter. Lord
Grey said that "Any such use of the censorship is directly contrary to the policy of His Majesty’s government and contrary to their orders.” An action of this kind, he stated would "constitute an offense under the ’Act to prevent disclosure of official documents and information* .. 41 of 1911.” The British Government had no reason to suppose that such use of the mails had taken place, but would be "glad to receive at any time evidence that such 41*3940
. ■ 38 - - ' It seems that this refers to the first inward- bound mails examined at. Kirkwall since February 14. Inward bound mails had been searched at Kirkwall as early as December 8. 1915 on board the Hellig Olav.
39 The brackets are not my own. 40 Memorandum, May 20, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, pp. 613-14.
41 Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, August 15, 1916, Ibid., pp. 618-19. 40-
an offense had actually occurred.”
Lloyd George on September 15, 1916 in an interview given to the Associated Press on the same question said • that there appeared to be a deliberate campaign on foot in the United States conducted by German agents to throw doubt on the good faith of the British censors. He challenged anyone to deny that the honest business interests and trade secrets of an American merchant or manufacturer were as safe in the hands" of military censors and of every British Government department as in the hands 43 of the American post office. The full text of this interview was mailed to the American Secretary of State by the British Ambassador in order to put the State Depart ment at ease. In the note accompanying the text of the interview the Ambassador wrote that Viscount Grey had informed him that tiie divulging of trade secrets which might come to the knowledge of any person through the censors would be an offense "punishable by imprisonment for two years with or without hard labour and a fine•» 44*
'" ■ 42 ■. ; ; - ." ■ ■.. . Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, August 15, 1916. Ibid., nn. 618-19.
Interview given by Lloyd George to the Associated Press September 15, 1916. Ibid.. p. 622.
44 Cecil Spring Rice to Robert Lansing, September 20, 1916, Ibid., pp. 621-22. -41-
• As no answer to the American note of May 24, 1916 had as yet been received, the State Department requested
Ambassador Page to urge the British Government to forward ' . - -45 the Allied reply without further delay. The reply, in the nature of a memorandum, finally was received on
October 13, 1916. In answer to the American charge that although the Allied Governments refrained from searching neutral mails on the high seas, they did search them in
British ports, bringing the ships in by force, if not stopping voluntarily, the memorandum stated:
On this first point and as regards vessels summoned on the high seas and compelled to make for an iVllied port, the Allied Governments have the honor to advise the Government of the United States that they have never subjected mail to a different treatment whether it was found on a neutral vessel on the high seas or on neutral vessels compelled to proceed to an Allied port. They have always acknowledged that visits made in the port after a forced change of course must in this respect be on;the same footing as a visit on the high seas, and the criticism formulated by the Government of the United States does not therefore seem waranted. ; As to ships which of their own accord call at Allied ports, it is important to point out that in this case they are really ^voluntarily* making the call. In calling at an Allied port the master acts, not on any order from the Allied authorities, but solely carries out the instructions of the owner; neither are those instructions forced upon the said owner. He does not, in truth, undergo any constraint. In point of law the Allied Governments think it a rule generally accepted, particularly In the *
: . .45 . . .. f ... \..... ' / Telegram from the Acting Secretary of State, Frank L. Polk; to Walter Hines Page, July 24, 1916, Ibid.. p. 615. —4 2 —
United States (U.S. vs.. Dickelman, U.S. Supreme Court, 1875; 92 U.S. Rep., 520; Scott,s cases, 264), that merchant ships which enter a for eign port thereby place themselves under the laws in force in that port, whether in time of war or of peace, and when martial law is in force in that port. It is therefore legitimate in the case of a neutral merchant ship entering an Allied port for the authorities of the Allied Governments to make sure that the vessel carries nothing iaimical to their national defense before granting a clearance.^6
As for the violation of the Eleventh Hague Conven tion the following was expressed in the Memorandum:
In regard to the value to be attached to Convention XI of The Hague 1907, It may first of all be observed that it only refers to mail found at sea and it is entirely foreign to postal correspondence found on board ships in ports. In the second place, from the stand point of the peculiar circumstances of the present war, the Government of the United States is aware that that convention, . . . has not ... been signed of ratified by six of the belliger ent, powers (Bulgaria, Italy, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, and Turkey); that for that very reason Germany availed itself of .article 9*" of the convention and denied, so far as it was con cerned, the obligatory character in these stipulations; and that for these several reasons the convention possesses in truth but rather doubtful validity in law.
With regard to the American statement that the 46
46 ' . " ■ Memorandum, October 12, 1916, Ibid., pp. 624-28.
■' 47 : - . ' Article 9 provides that "The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between contract ing Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention," The Proceedings of The Hague Peace Conferences I. p. 657.
48 Loc. Clt. Allied procedure was a violation of former practice, it was explained that no general rule could easily be seen prohibiting the belligerents from exercising the right of
"supervision, visitation, and if need be, seizure and confiscation" of postal correspondence. A number of cases were cited in connection with the Russo-Japanese
War, Franco-Prussian War, the American Civil War, and
Boer War. It was shown from the British standpoint that mail bags and postal correspondence did not enjoy - 49 immunity from examination and capture. *26
: ... -49. V - ■ ; The following practices were cited by the Allied Memorandum: - : -
The Russian Imperial decree of.May 13/25, 1877, for the.exercise of the right of visit and capture, provides, paragraph 7: The;following acts which are forbidden to neutrals are assimi lated to contraband of war: The carrying . . . o f dispatches and correspondence of. the enemy. The Russian Imperial decree of September 14, 1904 . reproduces the same provisions* The French practice during the war of 1870 is found outlined in the naval instructions of July 26, 1870 under which official dispatches were in principle assimilated to contraband and official or private letters were to be sent immediately to the Minister, of Marine. ; 1 : As for the practice followed by the United States in the American Civil War, the following instructions given by Secretary Seward in regard to the Peterhoff case were also cited in the Memorandum: "I have therefore to recommend that in this case, if the district attorney has any evidence, to show the malls are similated and not genuine, it shall be submitted to the court; if there be no reasonable grounds for that belief, then that they be put on their way to their original destination." Letter of Mr. .Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Welles, The Allied Governments, under:conditions set.forth in .this memorandum, were not of the opinion that the
United States as a neutral could enjoy the protection of
“shipments, invoices, correspondence, or communications in any shape whatever having an open or conceded hostile
r * ‘--f- ' ' ' V < * character)and with a direct or indirect hostile destina- rV'. X . 50 r .;• r. -r, ; - - i % tion; ...... ' , - ^ Two days after receiving the -foregoing memorandum from the British and French Governments, Secretary
Lansing cabled Ambassador Page in London regarding details : r- r . " -* * . 1 V.. .1 . . . about British censorship of neutral mails removed at ' r / • -.-.i, ' ".v ' ■ .. : ;• Kirkwall. The:following questions-were asked:
(1) How many censors actually employed as such on a given ship? . „ : • (2) Are the mails censored in one place or : distributed among various offices?-; u - (3) How many hours necessary for such censorship?®1 . ^ vx^'a ... i :
In addition the Secretary of State desired to know confidentially how many men would be required to be r. 2 present to act as supervisors during censorship in ease 50
' Secretary of the Havy, April 15, 18631 VII, ; r i Moore1s Digest, p. 482, cited by the Allied Governments, Allied Memorandum, October 12, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, pp. 624-28., .. .ri ; , ., r„ .
50 Loc. Clt. ' b'.. ■_ - ' . ■
r Telegram from, Robert Lansing to Walter Hines Page, October 14, 1916, Ibid., p. 629. -45-
the^American Government should ask Great Britain for the privileged ■;'■■■ v
A reply was received by e&ble on Sovember fl briefly answering Mr# Lansing1s - questions as followss -
’ r; (1) About 250 (2) At Strand House, London (3; The receiving and-dispatching staff can . deal with 250 bags an hour; the goods examiners _ can-deal with 550 bags a day; the trade-letter : examiners can deal with about 500 pounds of - letters a day; the private-note-letter examin ers can deal with about 150 pounds of letters a day; The average number of trade letters to the pound may be given very roughly at 20, and • of-private'-letters at 60# . - ^ In reply to the confidential last paragraph - of your telegram, I M v e no means of forming an accurate judgement which would depend on the j 'degree of supervision ydu_might-desire of the work of some 250 persons.52
There seems to be no evidence that tlie Secretary of
/imerican supervision of British censorship of American malls* * -' ; : ; -■ f ; \ ; *; " . ■■ : : • % 'c ■. ~ - - - ‘ - ' -7-. • > = - ! Some of the details of censorship of American mails, based upon information from the British Foreign Office,
are worth considering. United States mails censored in
Great Britain were divided into two classes, each of which
is handled by a separate organization:
(1) There were the terminal malls originating in or
52 Telegram from Walter Hines Page to Robert Lansing, November 8, 1916, Ibid., p. 630. -46 destined for the United Kingdom. Censorship of these mails is universally recognized as & sovereign right of a nation.: This right had been exercised by Great Britain
since the beginning of the war without protests from neutral governments. . „ ,
: (2) Th8re mere the mails, neither 0 ^ 1 ^ inf, in nor destined for the United Kingdom. These- mi l s were
further, divided into three groups: . -
(a) Transit mails were malls between European
countries and the United States intended by the office of dispatch to be sent through Great Britain, as for
instance mails sent from Rotterdam to England for
retransmission frcMt Liverpool to the United States. Such
sails were forwarded by the British Post Office and
enjoyed tlie same facilities as British malls. It was .
generally^admitted th&t Gre^t Britain could exercise the
right of censorship over them while in transit through
British territory. Censorship of these mails was not,
however, put into effect until April, 1915.
^(b) “Mails carried by neutral ships which normally
call at a British port or enter British jurisdiction
without any form of compulsion.M
r - (c) “Mails' carried by neutral ships which would
not.enter British jurisdiction without some form of —4 7 —
eoapulsion.n r. -..
The malls in-question case under the last two elasslfications. Under (b) were the mails carried by
Dutch-steamers that'normally called at British ports and under (c) those-carried by Scandinavian'steamers that
plyed directly between their ora countries and Hew York. The Dutch- steamers, in order -to avoid -sailing through the
Bngiish Channelj were routed north of Scotland dating two
ports of call &t Falmouth and Kirkwall. Coming from the
United States they would"stop first at Falmouth, where the
mall would be removed, and then proceed by way of Kirkwall.
When sailing from Holland to America, the mail would be
unloaded at Kirkwall, after which the boat would gb on to
Falmouthi In the ease of the Scandinavian steamers,
they were compelled to stop at Kirkwall for removal of
mails; before ; continuing to either the-‘United States or homeward to one of their own countriesi /. .
■ - The mails removed for censorship purposes were
examined neither at Kirkwall nor at Falmouth, but at
Lbhdbhi The Department of Postal Censorship,53 *55 employing
1 , . 53 The British Foreign Office to John Scheepers and Company, June 23, 1916. Ibid., -pp..611-12.------
Loch Cit;
Earlier there had been some mail removed at Ramsgate and The Downs. between 800 and•1000 men and women, would have had its efficiency and smoothness seriously affected:if its staff of workers had been split up between London and the ports of call, a It had been suggested that the mails should be examined at Kirkwall in order to save time. This would expedite the dispatch of mails only in rare cases. ; It would mean either the:delay of the ship from which the mails were removed or the delay of the mails for several -. ■ ' 56 ' days waiting for the next:ship to call at Kirkwall. * As it was, the malls, after being examined in London, were
forwarded immediately to Liverpool if intended for the
United States, :to Hew Castle or Hull for the Scandinavian
countries, or to Tilbury or Harwich for Holland. Inany
case the mails were forwarded with very little loss of
time. In fact it was possible for the mails to. Holland to
arrive earlier if removed than If not removed; When
removed it took as little as three days for mails to reach
Rotterdam from Falmouth, The maximum number of; days was
seven. When not removed a total of six days was needed.
But mail from Holland to the United States required from
on® to two days longer when censorship occurred. The
mails from Hew York to Denmark on ships making only the
- 5 6 . . , ...... Statement issued to the Press by the British Embassy, ‘August 10, 1916, Foreign Relations of/the United States. 1916. Supplement, o p . 615-16. - 49-
one .port of call at Kirkwall required from three'to six additional days when censored and the mails from Denmark to New York needed fro® two to four more. These figures were based upon the experiences of June and July, 1916, but were:not absolutely vouched.for in the sense of a schedule for future sailings due to the uncertain!ty of 57 the voyages-of the ships concerned. The Department of Postal Censorship received considerable-adverse criticism as to its motives and methods. Press comments had reflected the opinion that neutral trade secrets had been divulged by the censors.
This was denied in the;diplomatic correspondence referred to previously. The British censors.were also accused of permitting letters'to be read and their fate decided by young girls and forwarding or destroying letters according to the ac^ntary >7him of tiie readeri JThe facts of the case were that no women under twenty-five years of age were employed as censors and that they read only letters that did not require a business education to understand.
Any letter dealing with financial or commercial matters, which might be given to a woman to read if it were disguised as a "private® letter, was promptly turned over
to properly qualified male censors. As for forwarding or
57 Statement issued to the Press by the British Embassy, August 10,1916, Ibid.., pp. 615-16. •SO-
destroying letters according to it was denied.
Letters were not detained wlthcmt being referred to competent censorship officers and letters were -never . 58 destroyed. - ..i:: . - 'v
l It was;admitted that at:first longer intervals of time,elapsed than later between the removal of mails and their retransmlsslon* .Thisidelay occurring, earlier. was defended by the British Foreign Office: ::
Wien the urgent need of.examining first- class mails, in order to intercept those postal packets which are admittedly liable to be treated as contraband, was first realized, it would have been possible at . . • once to have brought the organization of the : censorship to the level of efficiency it has . , since reached by collecting hurriedly a \ large enough number of examiners, but it was thought that infinitely more harm would be ;:: done to neutral correspondence by allowing - ; ^ , their letters to be handled by persons -.engaged hastily whose character and relia- bility had not been thoroughly tested than by I subjecting the letters to some slight,delay. .- The necessary staff has now Dune, 191*8 . been carefully selected and the delay . . • r eliminated.59
Within forty-eight hours, according to Lord Robert
Cecil in 1916, the British Government could guarantee that all mails would be censored and handed to the post offices
58 .-.r.. British Foreign Office, The Mails as a German War Weapon (Memorandum on the Censorship of Mails on Neutral Ships) (London: Byre and Spottiswoode, 1916), pp. 13-14.
59 The British Foreign Office to JScheepers and Company, June 23, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, pp. 611-12. -51
for reforwarding*1, When undue delays appear to have occurred:it REUat .be attributed not: to delay by the . censors but by infrequent ami uncertain sailing of the ■ mail boats." Again he added, BW« have--:.given .pledges'' to this fact again and again, as the neutral governments now know, for in several eases' we have reforwarded without examination mails, which,; - owing to the pressure of work, 60 the' censors could not examine.within three days . . ,n
jXll preparations, which had seemed necessary had been made to deal with neutral mails as quickly and, from the English point of view, with as.much consideration as possible. But there.were difficulties.to be encountered.
There: was seemingly no reason to suppose that mall.bags from one neutral country to another contained enemy, mail.
Mail bags represented.as.containing printed matter would have not only cprrespcndenc® of all kiMs, registered and unregistered, but also articles such as rubber, coffee, and jewelry.According to the British It was not foreseen that persons, writing to or from enemy countries, would send their letters under cover through neutral countries.
Hor was it anticipated that "groat numbers" of complete sacks appearing to .contain business circulars from neutral countries would contain nothing but,-German propaganda, : . ■1 li;,-.
.6 0 - y.- ; .-y \ ; Lord Robert Well, Why Mall.Censorshin is Vital to Britain, p. 4 . , -yv. 52-
under covers bearing mutral postage stamps. Moreover, it was stated by'tord Robert Cecil that the nneutral mails also were filled-with securities, transfers of money, and all of the -• machinery used by Germany in maintaining her 62 credit.?" . - V : . % -
It was asserted-by Great Britain that the nsutral mails were also used by her enemies to send "’seditious matter'” and- propaganda to India and other British - 63 possessions In the Bast. . " , :
--"-iFrom the British viewpoint it v/as me6ssary to
continue censorship of the mails and the Department of
Postal Censorship attempted still further to perfect its
organization in order that the United States and other
neutrals should have less cause to complain of delays.
However, they wished it to be realized in the United
British Foreign Office, The Hails as a German War Weapon, on. 14-15. ' i
Lord Robert Cecil, Op,. Clt., p. 2.
6.3 The United States protested to the British Govern ment the searching of mails, .en route from Manila to ports in Java, on;board the Dutch steamer T.likenbang and the • Spanish steamer Eizagulrre. Robert Lansing to the Chargb. in Great Britain, I. B. Laughlin, August 15, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement. p. 618. But the British, having found seditious literature, held that they could exercise the right of search .in that mtreasonable matter can only.be regarded as an analogue of contraband,“ Walter Hines- Page to Robert’ Lansing, October IS. 19161■ Ibid.. PC* 623-24. • - • •-53-
States wh&t an ienormcms organization was needed to deal' with thousands of Ball bag®, in a few hours and also the extent -of the success which has already been achieved in 64 handling such a great quantity of correspondence.
" From the American point of view the opinion con tinued to be held until April, 1917 that Great Britain had exceeded her belligerent rights in examining certain neutral mails. British policy with regard to searching mails found on board neutral vessels had continued i": 1 ' 1", j.:.’l; unchanged. The Secretary of State oh October 17, 1916 in a letter to the President h e M that there were two classes of mailss : : L'- ..I
"First, mails going to or toward the Central Powers : 1 : ' . .7 ; .::: ' ... - 7.' ' .. ,■ ; - i: %** and SecdiHi, mails coming from those powers or from '-"'7 ■ ' ; - .. : . - 7 :. - . . . V : 6 5 contiguous mutral countries." ■ As for mails in the
second class coming from neutral countries he stated:
"... there is no basis at law or in reason for the
inspection of sealed or unsealed mails." With regard to
mails of the first class the Secretary held that there
64 — Maurice IM Bunsen. Why Mail Censorship is Vital to Britain (Memorandum on the American Note Dealing with the Censorship of Mails) (London: Jas. Truscott and Sons, Ltd., 1916), p. 9.
65 Carlton Savage, Policy of the United States Toward Maritime Commerce in War II (1914-1916 With Documents) (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936), Doouront SOS, pp. 628-32. ^ -54-
exists the right to inspect unsealed mails to detain contraband, but as for. sealed Bail, "there is a conflict of ; principle- due to the law of contraband and.the theory of inviolability, principles which are irreconcilable because the superiority of right of exercise has never 66 been determined.* : •
: The conclusions dram, by the Secretary, of State were:-; .:j;- ; - . . : • . --r ;
. That we. Insist that mail outcoming from \ neutral couiitries in continental Europe shall ' ; be treated asv inviolable and shall not be subject to detention, inspection or seizure. That t W extent and exercise of the :: belligerent right to detain, inspect, or seize mall ingoing to. continental Europe shall be submitted immediately to arbitration or to a joint commission of Inquiry, w h i c h . . shall seek to apply the conflicting prin ciples equitably and- lay down a series of rules which may be adopted as a modus operand! by this Government and those of the Allies.
After suggesting to the President that a note incorporating these propositions be sent to the Allied
Governments, he was duly authorized to do so on November
26, 1916. No further statement on the subject was sent to the British and French Governments. But on the day
bo Ibid.. pp. 528-32.
67 " ~ 7" ' " ' Loc. Cit. • * . -
Ibid.. p . 29 a M Document 210^ pp. 553-34. -55-
the United States entered the War Secretary Lansing
informed the Ambassadors in Great Britain and France that C;:., : .,'7 complaints had been received from American citizens that remittances sent to the Central Powers and to neutral
countries had not been received. He called attention to
a former statement of his, made in the note of May 24,
1916, that money orders, checks, drafts and other
negotiable instruments might be classed as merchandise
and that the United States reserved all right to press
claims for unjustifiable losses or delays suffered by '--:y v - f.; - - :6U . American citizens by the detention of such articles.
In the note of October 17, 1916, that Secretary
Lansing had written to the President, he said that in
considering the subject awe should bear in mind that,
while we are neutral in the present war, we may be
belligerent in the next and may deem it necessary to do
certain things which we now regard as extreme restrictions f.; y 70 ...y: ■ V.: - on neutrals.n This attitude may account for the United
States not pressing her claims more insistently than she
did.
69 - :;.v • ■y:-;. :y y y . , - v: y , : ;:-' y: Carlton SavaKe. On. Cit.. p. 29 and Document 244, p. 595. .7 v: ; : ; 7:y^7 , . ; _
70 Ibid.. p. 29 and Document 206f on. 528-152. CHAPTER IV
THE BRITISH-SWBBISH COHTROVBRSY OVER INTERF2RBHCB
v ■ : . . V/ITH IffiUTRAL M L S : : ... -
On December 15, 1915 the Swedish Government was notified by the British Government that fifty-eight bags of parcel mails had been removed from the Swedish steamship
Stockholm and were being detained at Kirkwall for examine- tion. Approximately the same time it was learned that postal parcels addressed to Sweden had been removed from the Danish steamship, Kellie Olav. A protest against both of these measures was sent to the British Government through the medium of Count Wrangel, the Swedish Minister to London, based on the grounds of violation of inter- national law. Previously when the British authorities had taken measures against Swedish shipping and commerce15 *
...... The British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, to the Swedish Minister at London, Count Wrangel, December 15, 1915, "Correspondence between the British and Swedish Governments on the Subject of the Detention by the Swedish Government of the British Transit Mail to Russia as a Reprisal for the Search of Parcels Mails by the British Government,« British and Foreign State Papers, CX (1916) (Cd. 8322), Great Britain Foreign Office (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1916), p. 531. ;;
; 2 . .. - ...... - - . L v - Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, December 87,.. 1915, Ibid., pp.. 532-38. which seemed to Sweden to constitute a violation of Inter national law, no seans of reprisal were taken as it was
felt that the British Government would take steps to
rectify tiie measures In question. But no# *#iile pro
testing in the most formal manner* against the seizure of
parcel malls, the Swedish Government Informed the British
Foreign Office1 that they had detained all goods from or
to England sent by parcel post through Sweden. This
measure would b© continued until the matter would be
settled satisfactorily and a guarantee given'against a
repetition of the incident*^
' Added to this was tiie protest of pecember 27, 1815
against fresh infractions in regard to seizures on board
the Frederick VIII. a Danish vessel, and the Tubahtia and
Frisia. Dutch vessels. In the case of the Frisia,
specific complaint: ims made concerning the seizure of
postal correspondence which was said to be a direct
violation of the Eleventh Hague- Convention of 1907.*
In explaining the position that it had taken, the
Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, December 27, 1915 , pp. 532—0^. ... — .. - - —.— -. - — .. ___ __
: • 4 Loc. Clt. It may be questioned that this is a violation of the Eleventh Hague Convention. Article 9 provides that its provisions apply only to contracting powers *and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.* Six of the belligerent States were . hot parties to the Convention. See appendix, p. 90. Swedish Government pointed out that the parcel mails hadn been seized and detained contrary to international law. .
In answer to the British j.state®emt 'tiiat parcels were
"certainly excluded from;the privileged treatment accorded 5 to postal^correspondence^*.the.Swedish Government said that in this respect it never thought of appealing:to the 6 special provlsioni of ths Eleventh Hague Convention. But on the other hand, the Comreatldm shov/ed a tendency to accord special treatment to mail boats. In addition, con signments by parcel post are under the direct guarantee of the State and a person making ms® ©£ ttto'post has a ; right to count on more rapid transportation due to & higher rate paid. / : -
Furthermore, Count V/rangel stated, the British :
Government had no right to detain and seize on the grmUKis of contraband . the parcels on the Hellig Olav which were
said to contain rubber, tttere was no reason for supposing an enemy destination as the parcels were addressed to
Sweden and to Swedish consignees, and more particularly as
the Swedish law prohibits the export of the commodity in
question. »A general suspicion,* the Count added, *of the
' 5 Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 1, 1916, I M d ., pp. 553-55» - f ; , ■■v.
Count Wr&ngel to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 535-28. • -50-
existence of an organisation for the regular transmission of contraband by means of postal parcels between America and Germany cannot be said to afford adequate justifica- 7 . tion . . ,n There had been a decrease rather than an increase in the number of packages sent by parcel post to
Germany from Sweden. "While the number of postal parcels from 1st July, 1913 to the 30th June, 1914, was 40,442, the number despatched from 1st July, 1914 to the 30th June, 8 1915, was only 87,524."
Rubber could not be classed as absolute, contraband hs it was. by the British Orders in Council of March 11,
1915 because in the Declaration of Londonj 1909, it was specifically put on the free list. At the most it could only be called conditional contraband as it was an article 10 of current civil use and not used by the military alone.7 *9
7 ^ Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, Ibid., pp. 535-38.
8. . - r ■- ' ■ ' Loc. Cit. \
9 ■ ■ ■ ; -.: ' -: . \ . : Rubber was in fact declared absolute contraband, October 29, 1914, American Journal of International Law X (October 1910), p. 38.
Count t?rangel to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 535-38. It may be added that the tendency during the World War was to use the one term contraband in place of both conditional and -60-
: In regard to the detention of the parcels on hoard the Swedish steamer Stockholm, there were no grounds for suspecting an enemy destination as they were addressed to
Chicago, Illinois, away from enemy territory and there was every reason to believe, said the Swedish Government, that they contained Christmas presents. Thus no possible right could be derived from the British Orders in Council of 11 March 11, 1915.
Moreover, the Swedish Government did not recognise the validity of that instrument. Neither did it recognize
absolute contraband. Oppenheim has the following to say:
. . But although till the outbreak of the World War the distinction between absolute and con ditional contraband was certainly correct in theory, and of value in practice, the war has shaken its foundation. It dates from the time when armies were small, and comprised only a very small fraction of the population of the belligerent countries. But during tne World War when .... every fit male in each belliger ent State became by choice or compulsion a member of the military forces when the whole country with all its resources was gradually mobilized, . . . many declared that the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband was out of date, because a belligerent Government could at any moment, and would if necessary, lay its hand on, and 'requisition, all articles in the country which were or might be, of use in carrying on the war. L. Oppenheim, International Law. Fourth Edition, Edited by Arnold D. McNair (London: Longmans, Green a M Co. Ltd., 1926), pp. 633-54.
" 11 ...... Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 535-38. 61
the validity of th© Allied blockade carried out chiefly by the British Wavy. "It is superfluous to point out," said
the Swedish Minister to Sir Edward Grey, "that conditions of an effective blockade, such as they are defined in the
solemn and international agreement regulating these 12 questions, do'not exist.0 the time will com©, added
Count Wrangel, wiien Great Britain, as well as the other belligerent powers, will appreciate the fact that Sweden was hot even a passive party to these-'violations of inter
national law. To this last statement Sir M w d r d Grey
replied that it implied a very grave charge and that it r r
must be repudiated "in the strongest and most categorical 13 manner as altogether uzmarranted."
From the first the British Government had protested
Swedish detention of British transit mails to Russia and
complained that the reprisals were Ma sonemat arbitrary pro
ceduren as they had been made without previous warning -in 14 regard to earlier measures on the part of Great Britain.
: . - "v f) ' ' . ■ •- ■ . -v - -' : - Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, January 21, 1916, Ibid; no. 535-58. This apparently has reference to the Declaration of Paris of 1856 which said that a blockade to be legal must be effective. -
... . 13 . . _ ...... Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 31, 1916, Ibid.. pn. 539-44.
* Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 1, 1916, Ibid., pp. 533-35. .-68-
, In the oote of January 31, 1616, Sir M w a r d teey
stated the British case In favor of ssaroliing neutral sails contrary to the provisions off the Eleventh Hague
Convention. In commenting on the Swedish statement-thmt
mail boats should be given special "treatment as, provided
in;the„Convention, he drew attention to the fact that in
a note.addressed as late as January 14, 1916 by the
Swedish Minister at P^ris to the French liiniater for Foreign Affairs, the Swedish Government declared that the
Thirteenth Hague Convention was inoperative due to the
fact that it had not been ratified by all the belligerent
Governments as provided by a certain clause forming an .
essential part of the instrument. "That is,M said Sir : 15 Edward Grey, «the recorded opinion of Sweden.” , The same
opinion was expressed by. Germany especially in reference
to the Eleventh,Convention when the Norwegian Government
called upon, her to justify her action in seizing certain
letter mails on board neutral ships. On that occasion
the Germans, although giving assurance that they would in
the . future refrain from such seizures> Mindicated their
perfect:right to act; as they had done on the ground that neither this nor any other Hague Convention of 1907 was
: 15- Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 51, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 559-44. . -63-
. . . binding.If the enemies of Great Britain did not hold the Hague Convention to be binding, why should the
British Government? It seemed doubtful, according to
England, that during the World War the Eleventh Convention ' could be Invoked in favor of special treatment of mail boats i. Even if the Convention itself could be held bind ing, it was pointed out that it was expressly stated in the debate leading up to the Convention in question that parcels would not be granted inviolability such as was accorded to postal correspondence. There would be no reason then for giving goods sent by parcel post more 17 considerate treatment than goods sent in general transit.
With regard to the Declaration of London, referred to by the Swedish Government as an argument against calling rubber contraband, the British Government stated that
Sweden was not even a signatory nation and that it was net ratified by any of the Governments that signed it.
Considering this, it could not be treated as valid. The seizure of the rubber was justified on the doctrine of continuous voyage which had been applied and recognized before the War and Great Britain should not at such a 1716
16 Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 31, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 539-44.
17 . l£LSL* PUL* .V -64-
1A time be deprived of its benefit.
f The right to visit end search neutral ships, an old and established rule of international lavr, was the reason offered by the British Government for detaining certain parcel mails on board the Swedish and Danish steamships. This rule has been well established by precedent and is accepted universally by both belliger ents and neutrals and cannot be called a violation of international law.
; rSir Edward,Grey accused Sweden of violating her neutrality.in the following words# ’‘Ms. Majesty*s Govern ment- do not.suppose the.Swedish Government deliberately meditated an unprovoked departure from their policy of neutrality, of so grave: a chai acter for the purpose of creating, friction with this country.a. The notes of the
British Government repeatedly requested an explanation and the release of the.British transit mall to Russia, and later when Sweden seemed slow in heeding the demand, the notes became sharper. 20*18
18 . ... ' ...... " " " ... Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 21, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 529-44. •
19:' ;Yv..i:::-h , h,:;: . - : . . hjY:./ L ' » " ' 'HtSSL*-'
20 Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 1, 1916, January 19, 1916, January 21, 1916, June 19, 1916, and July 6.. 1916. Ibid., pp. 533-55, 555, 529-44, 553-54, 556. -65-
-'In:-the note of January 31, 1916, Sir Edward Grey offered to submit the question to arbitration after the;. war, in case the decision of the British Prise Court c; proved to be-unsatisfactory* Concerning the necessity of submitting.questions of this nature to the Prize Court, he said: : : ■ ■■ ;. V - ■" - , : /: !. ; :-V.
If in the exercise,of the belligerents ; uraloubted rights, such as the right of visit and search, it is thought by.a neutral govern- : ment that the British naval or other authorities have gone beyond what the law of nations enables them to do, I can only repeat that it would be more consonant,with the principles governing the intercourse between two friendly governments if, the correctness of:the assumption on which : the neutral based his complaint were brought to the test in the manner and by the machinery ; prescribed for this purpose by the concensus of • all authorities of international law, as well as by the precedents set in every modern naval war. The rule that the legality of any act or; interference with neutral ships or cargoes on ;f;-:v::the high seas must in the first instance, be tested in a Court of Prize is one to which Great ..zLL.Britaln .when herself nimtral,;;has never failed to show obedience, often at the cost of cbn- n slderable inconvenience and loss to the British : / subjects;and important British interests.21 . ;
; On different occasions in the correspondence, Grey maintained that Sweden should submit the? cases to the:
British Prize Court rather than to resort to reprisals
21 ; . . •, - - Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, January 31, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 539-44.
. ...Vv 22 , : ' The few York Times stated In a news item on January 21, 1916 that as a further reprisal for the censorship and seizure of Swedish mails on neutral ships as counter-measures. : .
:• ? L -Sweden, however, still Insisted that the Declaration of London was an instrument of international law worthy of consideration. Count Wrangel stated in M s reply to Grey,
February 11, 1916, that "it will be enough to recall the fact that the Declaration, which was signed in London on the initiative of Great Britain, &ffirns in the preamble that *the rules contained in it correspomiin substance to the generally recognised principles of international 24 law.In the opinion of the Swedish Government this affirmation was particularly true with regard to the rule whereby goods ttof current civil use" such as rubber can 25 not be classed as absolute contraband. .
As for submitting the cases to the British Prize
Court, Sweden, In a note written March 13, 1916, had 23*
an eiabai'go of wood pulp was declared against Great Britain, becoming effective January 21, 1916. No mention of this was made in the British-Swedish correspondence over the detention of mails and it may have been a reprisal against British interference with trade in gemral. The embargo was lifted in May of the same year as a result of a trade agreement whereby pulp would beexchanged for coal.
23 % . . . , ■ ' • : . : .. - v.- „ 'Sir Edward Grey to Count Wangel, January 31, 1916 and April 25, 1916, British and Foreign State Papers. pp. 539-44, 550-52. : ; . :
._ _ 24 . _ ... Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, February 11, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 544-46. certain objections* Firstly, the doelsiOns of the
British Prlie Court are, as a rule, not given.for a very considerable time. As far as was known, none of the pending-cases coneerningselsure of goods belonging to
Swedish citizens had, up to March.13, 1916, been finally decided. Secondly, British counsel had maintained in the
Prize Court that the Court had no power to decide on the validity under international law ol\ the British Orders in Council. "If this doctrine is upheld^.:.said the
Swedish Government, *• there Is evidently *; .J • no hope of
success for a eluim based upon the invalidity of;such " i- 26 Order under international law.*
The Swedish Government had apparently hoped to
secure the cooperation of the United States in order to
bring about a discontinuance of what it called violations
of international law, at least so far as it applied to
first class mail. In the Swedish Minister's communication
of January 24, 1916 to the American State Department, the
Swedish attitude is clearly showas
Of late the British authorities have vio lated the mail traffic. Parcel post from, one neutral country to another is being unloaded :L; in British ports and the contents are being y . r: seized. While parcel post is not protected through the Hague postal convention, it*
26 vSwedish Chargb d'affaires at London, Wollmar Bostrom, to Sir Edward Grey, March 13. 1916. Ibid.. pp. 547-M). L: . • ■ : .. - nevertheless seems to His Majesty’s Govern ment that the British procedure in the form -and extensiveness-practiced, would be Invalid even with regard to ordinary express.goods, and that this seems particularly evident when the seizure of parcel post is directed against a means of conveyance under guarantee of sovereign powers. Besides great personal inconvenience is connected with seizure of this kind.-- -: However, England’s present praeilce ©f • censoring also first class nail, sent by neutral vessels from one neutral country to another. Is an even greater violation of the rights accorded neutral powers by the rules of international law. It is not,necessary to particularly point out how contrary this practice is to the-stipulations in the above- mentioned Hague Convention, which stipulations or rules must be considered to have been in existence even before the promulgation of this convention.^" - -"--a ' ■■ :v-. Wi:
- No move, however, was made by th# Halted States to bring about joint cooperation with the Swedish loyal
Government.' -Except1 for an acknowledgement of the coa- munication, the matter was apparently dropped.
Sweden decided to accept the British proposal to arbitrate, provided that it could be done soon, but was informed by Gir Esme Howard, British Minister to Stockholm, 282927
27 : v "v.; ' :v'-: h/v; • ;• . ■■■ - W. A. F. :acengreii to Robert Lansing, January 24, 1916. ForeiKn Relations of the United States. 1916.
28 Robert Lansing to V/. A. F. Ekengren, January 28, 1916, Ibid., p. 695. .
29 Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, February ll, = 1916. British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 544-46. -5B-
•ZQ that arbitration could occur only after the v;ar. On
June 5, 1916, the British Government Imposed the following conditions on the question of arbitrations
1. The offer therein mad# to the Royal Swedish Government respecting arbitration - applies only to disputes about parcels sails carried on Swedish vessels. ~ 2. As a general rule. His Majesty*5 Govern ment could only entertain a proposal for , arbitration in such cases, subject to the following conditions. - * ^ (a;. That: the decision of the Prize Court should have been previously given. (b) That the Royal Swedish Government shall be dissatisfied with such a decision. (c) That diplomatic discussions between the Governments shall have led to settle ment satisfactory to both parties. 3. In the case, however, of the Kellig Olav. .His Majesty1s Government are prepared to consent forthwith to arbitration after the war, upon the question of the parcels mails carried by this ship, if the Royal Swedish Government should find themselves dissatisfied with the ~ Prize Court decision,' which will be given in the case of these parcels mails.
v These proposals v/ore not. entirely satisfactory to the Swedish Government as it wished to include all dis- putes in regard to British Prize Court decisions. Bat
: 30 . . ■ " Memorandum presented by the British Minister in Sweden, Sir 3sne Howard, to the Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Marcus Wallenberg, February 28, 1316, Ibid.v pp. 540-47.
. ■.■■■ 31 : ': \ Note verbale from Sir Esme Howard to M. Wallen berg, Jute 5, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 552-53.
, . 32. : - ' . Count Wrangel to Sir Edward Grey, June 29, 1916, Ibid., pp. 554-55. -70-
Sngland felt that skm oauld not subject her whole. na « l policy during the war to a court of arbitration, .ami ... besides it-was not necessary according to the terms of the
Anglo-Swedish arbitration contention signed August 11, 33 1904. After some hesitation Sweden declared her accep tance of the proposals, but clearly stated that the repeal of the Swedish order which had brought about the detention of British sails did not Bean the resumption of sail transit in general until -England ceased t# take 34 measures against Swedish mails.
Nothing had been said in the arbitration discussion concerning the Post Office agreement between Great Britain 35 and Sweden, signed May 10 and .26, 1904, until;the
53 - ' - ■ : a ■. ; / ■ a. nConvention between Great Britain and Sweden and Norway Providing for the Settlement by Arbitration of certain classes of Questions which may arise between the Respective Governments, August:11, 1904>n Great Britain Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Papers. XCVII (1903-1904) (London: Printed for His Majesty«s Stationery Office by Harrison and Sons, 1908), pp. 91-92. The British Government pointed out that *jfcfois convention is not a general one stipulating for the reference to arbitration of all cases in which a dispute exists between the two countries. It specifically recognizes exceptions in the cases of. matters involving the vital interests of either party . . .n The conduct of naval operations against the --.enemy was considered a matter of vital interest. Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangal,' April'25, 1916, Ibid., pp. 550-52.
- , . 34 • - ■ - ; ' " Count Wrungel to Sir Edward Grey, June 29, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 554-55.
. v 35 HAgreement between the British and Swedish Post -71-
3® British note of July 6, 1916. It was agreed in this treaty that both countries would transmit mail across their respective territories to other countries. In the note: of July 6, 1916 Sir M ward Grey wrote that offers of arbitration must be withdrawn unless the Swedish Govern ment agreed to fulfill her obligations under the Post 57 Office Agreement of 1904 to transit mail to Russia#
In the sane note the demsnd to .release the nail was again made, accompanied with the statement that damages would be claimed. -
.' In reply the Swedish Goternaent stated that Sir
Bsme Howard had been informed after the arrival of the note of June 5,- 1916 Rof the acceptance of the proposals therein” and of the Post Office Order releasing the mall.
As for British claims for damages, they must be considered in connection with Swedish claims for damages due to
British measures. The demand that Sweden should agree to resume transit of British nail was entirely a mew
Offices Concerning the Direct Exchange of Parcels by Parcel Post, May 10 and 25, 1904,” Great Britain Foreign Office. British and Foreign State Papers. XCVII (1903- 1904) (London: Printed for His Kajesty*s Stationery Office by Harrison and Sons, 1908), pp. 81-91.
36 Count Wrangel to 81r Edward Grey, July 24, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 556-58.
37 Sir Edward Grey to Count Wrangel, July 6, 1616, Ibid.. p. 556.
i proposal and should not eome under the-present dlscus- S8 Sion. V : J . " . : , ' ■ - ■
■ With . the release ogrthe:British mails the attitude
of Great Britain softened and Grey informed the Swedish
Minister, Count Wrongel, that, offers of arbitration
would remain open so long as Sweden:forwarded the mail 39 between Great Britain and; Russia.; : She Swedish Govern
ment then expressed the hope on August 17, 1916, that the
questions in dispute would be. settled by arbitration. ,
But on the other hand, although recognizing the validity
of the Post:Office Agreement of: 1904, Sweden reserved the
"right to interrupt the;application of the agreement A-further exchange of notes between Great Britain and Sweden occurred in September, .1916 with regard to additional Swedish seizures of.British transit mail to Russia in retaliation to difficulties brought about by the British blockade. .In the note.addressed by Wrangel .to.Grey,lit was expressed that Sweden shared the hope : - ' : ' ' _ Count Wrungel to Sir Edward Grey, July 24, 1916, Ibid.. pp. 556-58. 38 Viscount Grey to Count. Wrangel, august 2, 1916, Ibid., pp. 558-59. " "' - 40 Count Wrangel to Viscount Grey, August 17, 1916, Ibid.. p. 559. *75** expressed by discount Grey that the correspondence any bring a definite solution of the question at Issue and that she would warmly congratulate herself on the application of the fertile principle of international arbitration. The Swedish Minister said further that he was glad that the British Government appeared to recognise it is ah impossibility for the Swedish Govern ment "to-renounce in advance the right to take measures which regrettable circumstancesjeight render necessary." It was reiterated that, although recognizing the binding character of the Postal agreement of 1904, Sweden had the right to suspend the agreement under such conditions as were then/in question: . :; ^ ' : In his reply Viscount Grey stated that the Swedish communication was not clear and that he had instructed the British Minister at Stockholm to explain to the Swedish Government that Great Britain "must as a con dition precedent to any arrangement involving recourse to arbitration have assurance that the Swedish Government will definitely cease to interfere with the transit of 42 parcels to and from the United Kingdom across Sweden." 41 Hews item in The New York Times. September 11, 1916, p. 3. 4P. Loc . Clt -74- With this last exchange of correspondence, the British-Swedish mail controversy apparently came to an end. No evidence seems available, in either press reports or;in documentary form, that it was carried.any fartheri As for arbitration after the war, according to information ■ ‘ ’ . ' * ■ _ . : ^ j . : . . 40 : • > obtained from the Swedish 'Legation at London and the British Library of Information in New York, it did not take place.j 43 . . Letter from the Swedish Legation at London, January 7, 1937. T ' « ' f \ > , . ' •« - .* • < ' , \ ... i - x '*■ J - -1 ^ ' ‘ ,r. • > *.'34 ’ - .i * —* * - - " ► -.-k. ^ . - -■■. . ... -tt.. -e ■ r - '' ’ - 44 ’ _ • . " ' ' Letter from’the British Library of Information in New York, December 30, 1936. CHAPTER V BRITISH INTERFERENCE WITH DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR MAILS By September, 1914, it was known that Great Britain was opening and censoring the mails of the American Consular Service. In a note dated September 4, 1914, the American Minister in the Netherlands, Henry Van Dyke, requested from the American Ambassador in England, Walter Hines Page, information regarding regulations and authorization under which British officials opened con- sular mails between Holland and Great Britain. Later on September 18, 1914, another note was dispatched asking that attention be called "once more to the practice of opening and censoring communications between officers of the United States." A number of envelopes that had been opened were enclosed as evidence. John M. Savage, American Consul at Sheffield, in a note dated September 19, 1914, informed ambassador Page that a note received • The American Minister in the Netherlands, Henry Van Dyke, to the /uaerican Ambassador' in Great Bfitain,. Walter Hines Page, September 4, 1914, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1914. Supplement. bD.SSS-iG. 2 Henry Van Dyke to Walter Hines Page, September. 18, 1914, ttid.,, p. w r , - ' - ’ • from the American Consul’ General at Rotterdam had been S opened by British censors. ’ ■ ; Instead of bringing these mutters to the immediate attention of the -‘British' Government,- 'the' omeplean'" -Ail- ■ • hassudor wrote, on September E4, 1914, to his government 4 in Washington for instructions. Included in the note was the information that a plan had been evolved In Germany for the exchange of communications between that country and England by deans of the American Ooneular ; Service; ‘ This plan had been brought•to light a few weeks earlier when "a sealed letter ‘was received from Germany for forwarding to an address which appeared to be Seymour Hebenthal' (?) Bill, England.* Due to the existing rule that no sealed communications -from Germany could be forwarded, tiie letter was opened and read* It was found to contain directions written in German showing how letters could be sent from England to G e m e w through the . -1:" - v.-v-^y V' j. . . . iv American Consular mull to avoid British Censorship. Mail addressed to Germany would be sent first to the American Consul in Hull who would forward it to the American *24 3 The American Consul at Sheffield, John M. Savage, to V,'alter Hines Page, September 19, 1914, Ibid., pp. 537- 38.' “ MS' . Walter Hines Page to William J. Bryan, September 24. 1914 A Ibid.. .u p . 536-37. ' ' '' - " ’ ' - w - Consul.in Copenhagen who would send it on to an American Consul in Germany.: From there it would be mailed to.its final destination. This means of transmitting:mail would „ be accomplished by use of a series, of inner enclosures. Each' consul in turn, would find one in an envelope addressed to him to be:forwarded. This communication, reported Mr. 5 Page, was sent, to the British Censors. There.is no .; indication that this plan,was in any way ever carried out. Soren Listoey. American Consul General at Rotterdam, stated October 24,v 1914 in1 a telegram to Secretary, of ■ . State Bryan that no commercial correspondence had been o ^knowingly.: transmitted.a i i In ^bassador Page’s letter, of September 24• there was:also;included.a copy of the telegram received by him from Henry Van Dyke,: American Minister in the Netherlands, regarding British mail addressed: to Germany: Please publish Immediately in English j ' papers that. Gemany requires all letters to private persons, via,Hagup Legation to be written.in German and unsealed. i This request was not complied v/ith because it seem ed to show that letters ethild be safely sent to Germany 5 Walter Hines Page to William J. Bryan’, September 24, 1914.'Ibid.. u p . 536-3?. .6 ’ Telegram, from the /onerlean Consul General at Rotterdam,; SorenMstoe, to William J . Bryan, October 24, 1914. Ibid..'p. 559. ' through an American legation^ Unless this were strictly limited Ito /uaerican citizens,, it would be inconsistent. with neutrality.: Furthermore, it was ascertained that it would not be agreeable to the British Government to transmit "by Government pouches or other meansof despatch" private correspondence to the enemies of .Great Britain. . ^ However, without consulting the American Embassy in London;an.announcement which was intended to apply only to correspondence between American citizens in Great Britain and Germany was published in the American Bulletin. It was the same in substance as .ttu.t requested by the . American Legation in,the Netherlands. At the request of Mr. Page;.the announcement was discontinued. The British Government did not approve of mail being forwarded even to British subjects fin Germany.as can be seen from the announcement issued by the Foreign Office: ; The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ' desires to inform the public that letters : addressed to British subjects in Germany cannot be sent by post through the medium of .the Foreign.Office or through the United States Embassy in London. Postal or tele graphic communications with British subjects has absolutely ceased.® . , - 78 7 ; • .• . . : : .. . . " - ; :; The American Bulletin was a daily publication for the aid of.American relief work. 8 Walter Hines Page to William J . Bryan, September 24, 1914, Foreign Relations of United States. 1914. Supplement, pp. 536-X7. -79- Due to the circimst;-mces mentioned. Ambassador Page:felt that representations: to the British Government should not be Bad® unless he were.speelfleelly dire© ted to do so by his Government. Inthe instructions that were cabled to him at his request nothing was said concerning protests for the.action taken by British censors.: In fact, the-State Department was of the opinion "that correspondence in time of war between diplomatic and consular offices in different countries sent by : ordinary mail may be subject to censorship in the same 10 manner as other private letters.0 But it was added that "pouches under seal passing between diplomatic missions of the: United states by mail or courier ought not in the opinion of this Government to be opened or molested by 11 censors or other officials of foreign governments.* The same was true it was stated of official correspondence under seal between American consular and diplomatic 12 officers and the-American Department of State.11* 10 ' . Cl „ ' ' - • •• ■ • • • -• ' \ ■ • - * - • ; > "• .'L ' , . - - * - ' - - ^ • . - • - *• *■ - - ' - •• - Walter nines Page to William J. Bryan, September 24,. 19.14, Ibid.. ,. pp» , 56.6^37* ;--- -- — . — 10 Telegram from tiie Acting Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, to Walter Hines Page, October 22,:1914, Ibid., n. 538. 11 : : :: : : - - ■ ■ ■ : 'fin- - : ' ' '. ' 12 ' ' Ci t . -80- The Consul General at Rotterdam asked for positive instructions regarding the transmission of commercial - correspondence between belligerent countries and the 15 United States. : The State Department replied that such correspondence #as forbidden.• The consulate would . ; neither be used for that nor for the transmission of 14 private commercial telegrams. . : '■y. : Realizing that there were no. uniform regulations for the transmission of diplomatic and consular corres- pondence, the United States undertook in November* * 1914 to submit,to the belligerent nations a set of proposals for their acceptance. These:proposalstembodied the ' . principles set forth by the State Department in its instructions to Walter Hines Page and Soren Listoe. All correspondence between American diplomatic and consular ■ y - .... r ; :.v Vf-: : r vl. r - - - ;r-v:' officers was to be inviolable if sent under seal of office. All official correspondence under seal of offlcebetween. r diplomatic;officers of.different countries was not to: be moles ted-oro opened. Likewise correspondence between American consular and diplomatic officers and the American y: ■■■ 13 " - . i :Telegrams from Soren Listoe to William J. Bryan, October 24 and November 1, 1914, Ibid.., pp. 539* 540. : .14 ' .... • Telegrams from the acting Secretary of State, Robert Lansing* to Soren Listoe, October 29 and November 2* 1914, Ibid., p d . 559. 540. ... : : Government was to be inviolable•; Pouches n M e r --seel between American diplomatic etselcms were not to be Inter fered with. Private correspondence, however, v/as not to be forwarded under seal of office and such correspondence was to be subject to censorship; --toes® proposals were presented to the governments of the belligerent nations and were accepted in entirety by the:governments of - r 16 v .I'-.'...: 17;- 1 Austria - and - Eervla. they ''were "accepted * with- resar- vations by the governments of Russia, Germany, Japan, r , , , . ; ■ ■ I Q . . ; ■ ' ' . - - - • • • " . • . . • - » • . - - % . - -X Cy • » i - ► . - ‘ * ... ' • — % France, and Great Britain. The Turkish Government alone refused to consider them. The British modifications submitted to ambassador Page on February 6, 1915, were practically identical with these of the French. They were: (1) That the United States Government should l \ formally recognise that consular officers have . >' " V : : . : . ; • ~ ... , . . ' : ’ - i .'15 v'v-';.!'.'.. .V*1: ' v ■, ■■ 1‘ -: William J. Bryan to the American Ambassador in Austria-Hungary,. Frederic ,C. -Penfield,.. Hovember 25, 1914, Ibid.. pp. 542-45. For the complete text of these proposals, see Appendix p. 92. , 16 ;f. ' ;; . , ;;; ^ Frederic G* Penfield to William J. Bryan, December 8, 1514, Ibid.. p. 543. ■ 17 . v . : . V: ... - : ' : ■ : ; - ■ ;V. ■ _ . .. . - . i : The American Minister in Servia, Charles J. Vopicka to William J. Bryen, December 24, 1914, Ibid., p. 545. 18 For the reservations made by Russia, Germany, and Japan in.accepting the proposals, see Appendix p. 93. no claim as such, to the. exemption: In question and that the present concession is made purely . as an act of friendship hetTOen the two. countries. . (2) That the extension of the privilege of exemption to consuls shall be strictly con fined to consuls de carrlAre. : i - (5) His Majesty’s Government are compelled by the necessities of the military situation ; to request the United States Government to be c .so good as to give a written guarantee that there shall be strict observance of the rule ; that no private .correspondence;- of individuals or of firms shall be forwarded to or from ; : diplomatic or consular officers under, official cover or seal.19 Except to ask for a written guarantee that private correspondence would not be sent through diplomatic channels. Great Britain did not hesitate at this time to grant diplomatic mails under seal of office inviolability. Consular mails under -seal of office were granted immunity from censorship until September, 1916. However, it was believed by, the American State Department that American diplomatic and consular mails had been removed from the 21 Dutch steamer Meiiw Amsterdam and detained oh December ■ . 19 : .y . . -7 T % U7""'. ‘ • ~ Sir Edward Grey to Walter Hines Page, February 5, 1915, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement, -pp.- 741-42. ; - . 20 ' ; The American Consul General at London, Robert P. Skinner, to,,the- American Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, September 15, 1916,; Ibid.. 1916. Supplement, pp. 622-23. 21 It was not reported that these mails were censored. L v -83- ‘ .'P 23, 1915. : Ambassador Page was requested to make era- 23 phutic representations to the British Foreign Office. 24 But In the British-French reply no mention was made of the incident and the matter was apparently dropped. British sincerity in according inviolability to consular mails, is evidenced by a letter of regret, dated January 15, :1S16, sent to Robert P.; Skinner, Consul General at London, by Major A. Tidy, Assistant Censor in Charge at Liverpool> when by accident a consular com munication had been opened by the censors. : An excerpt from the letter follows:. . ■ . ^ L The letter itself has not been read, fh© orders as to the immunity from censorship of c all letters addressed to consuls of neutral powers are very explicit and the error can only have been due,to gross carelessness. I have warned the offender and hope that similar mistakes will be avoided in the future, and I herewith tender you ay sincere apolo- ...gies.2" *24 .. V.'; 22 . Telegram from Henry Van Dyke to Robert Lansing, December 28, 1915, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1915. Supplement, p o . 739-40. . Telegram from Robert Lansing to Walter Hines Page January 4, 1916, Ibid.. 1916. Supplement. pp. 591-92. ' 24 The French Ambassador, J. A. Jusserand to Robert Lansing, April 3. 1916. Ibid.. pp. 598-601. Communication from the Assistant Censor in Charge at Liverpool, Major A. Tidy, to the Consul General at -8*i~ But in September, 1916 Great Britain departed from 86 the practice of granting immunity:to consular mails. On-the 15th of that month:the Consul General at London ' reported "that within the last ten days all letters ...... • 27 of American origin have been opened by the censers#” Be also reported the opening of mails addressed to 'the American Consuls1at Birmingham and Liverpool# ••■"■'■■■■"v ;• .''The- resumption of the censorship of consular mails by the British Government was not caused by any change of opinion for it never did admit that such mails were - entitled to Immunity. It had stated explicitly "that-the United States Governwnt should formally recognize that consular officers have no claim as such to the exemptions in question and that the present concession is made purely 28 asanactof friendshipbetween the twocountries.n London, Robert P.;Skinner, quoted in note from Robert Pi Skinner to Robert Lansing, September 15, 1916, Ibid., pp." 682-23;' ^ - ■ ■ ; . - .28 This refers to the practice of granting immunity to correspondence under seal of office between American consular officers1and the American Government. It was never agreed to grant Immunity t# correspondence between consular officers only. See above pp. 80-82 and Appendix pp. 92-94. Robert P. Skinner to Robert Leasing, September 15, 1916, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1916. Supplement, dp. 622-23. ill See above pp. 81-82 for, British modifications of —&&- j. But in May, 1918 the British Government did change its opinion regarding the inviolability of diplomatic mails in transit through Its territory* Heretofore there seemed to be no question as to their immunity from . 29 search. The British Government, however, cam® to the conclusion that there were grounds for:believing that communications of a "personal and business nature" had been exchanged with the diplomatic missions in Germany under neutral official covers. It felt;that it was no longer possible to continue the practice of exempting from censorship postal packets containing such matter. Votlee was served that in the future locked bags would no longer 30 be handled.by the British postal administration. The- Dutch Minister at The Hague; was informed by the *29 proposed'regulation for the transmission of diplomatic and consular mails. . It is interesting to note that the United States upon its entry into the war continued to grant immunity to consular mails between consuls do carridre and their respective governments. It was stated that "consular officials have no claim as such to uncensored use of the mails," but that "this use will be granted out of courtesy . . ." Robert Lansing to heads of Diplomatic Missions in Washington, January 5, 1918, Ibid.. 1918. Supplement I, p. 1755. 29 L. Oppeaheim, International Law I. pp. 644-45. stated that diplomatic correspondence was inviolable even when passing over the territory of a third state. .. .50 ;,. v l Telegram from the Chargfe in Great Britain, I. B. Laughlin, to Robert Lansing, June 7, 1918, Foreign Rela tions of the United States. 1918. Supplement I, pp. 1757-58. —06“ British Government on May 31, 1918 that at the close of four weeks diplomatic mails addressed to a Foreign Government in a third state could no longer pass through British territory free from censorship# The reason given was that the official mall was being used to transmit business communications from and to Germany. The British Government also stated that it had no obligations to facilitate the interchange of diplomatic correspondence except that which passed between tide diplomatic missions in London and their respective governments. In the Dutch reply of August 7, 1918, that government challenged this statement contending that a state had the right to an unobstructed communication with its diplomatic representatives even over the territory of a third state. Moreover, the Government of the Netherlands could not accept the implication that its official mail had been misused for its diplomatic and consular agents were under strict orders not to allow the -Dutch official seal to be . - ' 58 used for other than Dutch interests,. Except to acknowledge the receipt of this note the British Mededeelli______van den. Zaken aan de Staten Generaal. (April 1918-June 1919), p. 35, (Referred to also as Dutch Orange Book V), used as source by Amry Vandenboseh, The Neutrality of the Nether lands During the World War. p. 257. 52 ;; y; " d t . Government made no reply.?3 ' r . •. . : ■ In order to remove any: uncertainty in the mind of the Americtin Govermaentr as to the scope of the new British censorship practice,; I. B. Laughlin, »Berloan Charge in Great. Britain* was. Informed on July 11, 1918 that it was not intended to be applied to the correspondence of the 34 United States Government. Earlier on July 1, 1918, the British Government had inquired iflthe United States would - vn '.-.1 i -' •; i; v . tfike similar steps regarding diplomatic mails. In reply Robert Lansing stated that his government was not disposed 35 to adopt the suggested procedure. The tendency of the United States during its par ticipation in the World War was to respect the principle of the inviolability of diplomatic mails and to grant immunity from censorship to the correspondence to all consuls de carrie're when communicating with their own governments. In these respects British policy had become quite the opposite. By June, 1918 the British Government 33*35 33 Aery Vandenbosch, The Neutrality of the Kether- I. B. Laughlin to Robert Lansing, July 17, 1918, Foreign Relations of the United States. 1918. Supplement I, p. 1759. 35 Robert Lansing to the British Charge In the United States, C. Barclay, August 29, 1918, Ibid., pp. 1759-60. —88— had begun to examine the diplomatic correspondence of neutral countries passing over its territory and except for the period from February, 1915 to September, 1916 it censored all consular, mails. . This policy continued until 56 the end of the War. r - : i . ; ; - , • • -■ v* . ■>; - ■ -i : 36 " ' " .... That this policy was continued until the end of the War seems to be a natural conclusion as there is no information available to indicate otherwise. : APPENDIX ' THE STATUS OF THE MAILS AT THE OPENING OF THE WORLD WAR The. status of ordinary mails at the opening of the . World War was determined largely by the Eleventh Hague Convention of 1907 and by previous practice in time of war. At the Hague Peace Conference Doctor Kriege or der many. presented the proposition that postal correspon dence on the high seas, whatever Its character, should be inviolable. He stated "it is hardly likely that belliger ents, who have : at their disposal for the transmissions of their dispatches the channels of telegraphy and radio telegraphy, would, resort to ordinary mails for official communication relating to military operations.H Doctor Kriege was of the opinion that the special character of mail vessels should be recognised and that belligerents should refrain from boarding them except when absolutely necessary. Inviolability;of correspondence should be . absolute regardless of the.nationality of the.vessel carrying it* By giving the mails, this protection,:commer cial and other interests so dependent upon the postal service, could be freed "from the disturbance.which might be caused from naval warfare."! : .. ... c Doctor Kriege*s proposition was incorporated into the Eleventh Hague Convention as articles 1 and 2. They reap, as follows; - . : : ... - : . ; Article 1. The postal correspondence of neutrals or belligerents, whatever its charac ter may be, official or private, found on board a neutral or. enemy ship at sea, is ^ inviolable. If the ship Is detained, the correspondence is forwarded by the captor with the least possible delay. ; - 1 The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference III (Carnegie edition) (New York; Oxford University Press, 1920), p. 851. jU6S*26 -90- ^Th© provisions o£ the preceding p&rsgrspi do not apply> In case of violation of blockade, to correspondence destined for, or proceeding from, the:blockaded port. : Article 2. The inviolability of postal correspondence does not exempt a neutral mail ship from the laws and customs of maritime war as .to neutral merchant ships in-general. The ship, however, must not be searched except in case of necessity, and then with as.much ■ consideration and expedition as possible.*2 It should benoted that the convention refers to postal correspondence only and does not include parcel post. Further, It covers only postal correspondence found at sea and not that found in port. It should also be noted that according to article 9 of the same convention, thd pro visions apply only to contracting powers and "then only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.”5 In the World "far six of the belligerents were not parties; namely, Russia, Bulgaria, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkeyi.r However; with the exception of Russia, it was ratified by the greater powers. : : Previous practice in treatment of mails in tine of war was referred to particularly by the United States in order to show that mail bags had enjoyed Inviolability in the past.: This was apparently true in part only. Amos S. Hershey, in his editorial "The So-Called Inviolability of the Mails;" published in The American Journal of Inter na tional Law (Julv. 1916), is of the opinion that the immunity of mail bags from search is far from fixed. This he supports by quoting from War and Neutrality in the Far East by T. J. Lawrence, in which the matter is fully treated: :In recent times a practice has grown up of granting special favors to such mail-boats in time of war, if they are neutral and willing to accept the conditions imposed. The United States has been the pioneer in this matter. During her war with Mexico she allowed British ' fmS - i- - ' ^ - ' ' ' « , -u . Ibid. I. p. 656. Ibid. I, p. 657. -91- mall-steamers* to pads unmolested In and out of the port of Vera Cruz, which came into her possession for a time in 1847. In 1862, when the American Civil War was at its height, the Government at Washington ©Kempted from search the public amils of any neutral Power, if they were duly sealed and authenticated, but it was added that the - exemption would not protect Hsimulated mails verified by forged certificates and counterfeit seals.s If a vessel'Carrying mails rendered itself subject to capture for other reasons, she might be seized, but the mail-bags were to be forwarded unopened to their destination. The example thus set was followed by France in 1870. At the commencement of her great war with Germany she announced that she would take the' word of the official in charge of the letters on board a regular mail-steamer of neutral nationality as to the absence of any noxious communications. The proclamation of President McKinley at the beginning of the war with Spain In 1898 went further still. It de clared that "the voyages of mail-steamers are riot to be Interfered with, except on the clearest grounds of suspicion of a violation of law in respect of"contraband dr blockade.n A similar indulgence was granted by Great Britain in the course of the Boer War to steamers flying the German mall flag. They were not to be stopped on sere suspicion that there might toe unlawful despatches in their bugs. On the other hand, many modern cases may be mentioned where no indulgence, or a very limited one, was given. For instance,: in 1898 Spain did not duplicate the American concession, and in 1902 Great Britain and Germany would net allow neutral mail-steamers to pass through their blockade of Venezuelan ports, but stopped them instead, and after overhauling their correspondence and determining what seemed noxious, sent-the rest ashore in boats belonging to the blockading squadron. We see then that practice is by no means uni- form. It is impossible, #erefore, to argue that the usage of the last half-century has conferred upon the vehicles of the world’s commercial and social communications an immunity from belliger ent search which they did not before possess. The utmost we can venture to assert is that such a usage is in the process of formation, and is in: -92 itself so convenient that it ought to become permanent and obligatory^ due security being taken against its abuse.4 . The opinion of. M o s S. Hershey :and T. J. Lawrence that the status of the malls was apt fixed is shared by the Naval War College in its book International Law Situations 1928. the notes of that volume were drawn up by no less an authority than George Grafton Wilson of Harvard University who stated that »The practice in regard to the treatment of postal correspondence was, however, by no means uniform nor could any rule be said to be generally accepted. :■. ■ :... ". ■,' ■_; . y . During the early months of the War the American . Government was anxious .to define the exact status of diplomatic and consular malls. On November 25, 1914, Secretary of State William J. Bryan cabled the American Ambassador in-Austria-Hungary, Germany, Great Britain, France,- Russia, Japan, and Turkey, mnd the American Minister in Serbia requesting them to present the follow ing proposal for theapurpose of establishing uniform - : regulations, for the. transmission of diplomatic and con sular correspondence: All correspondence be tween American dlplo- . matie jand consular officers within Austrian 1 territory Biis is the proposal sent-to the ; Ambassador in Austria. Similar ones were sent to the others, to be inviolable if under seal ; of office. . v L-:: ■" 2. No correspondence of private iMividuals ..... _ to. be forwarded by diplomatic and cqnsular . officers under official cover or seal. 3. Official correspondence between American diplomatic officers residing in different :. countries is not to .be opened or molested•if ; under seal of office. T. J. Lawrence, War and Neutrality in the Far East (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1904),) > pp. 185 ff. cited by Amos S. Hershey in "The So-Called Inviolability of the Mails.," The American Journal of International Law, 5 Naval War College, International Law Situations 1928 j(Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1929), pp. 40-66. . 93, ; V ; 4.- Official correspondence under seal of office between the Department of State and American diplomatic and consular officers is ' not to be opened or molested# 5. Pouches wader seal passing Between , ' American diplomatic nissiohs by mail:or :: : . courier not to be opened or molested. 6. Correspondence other than that des cribed in the foregoing sent by. ordinary-mail , ■ i _ v to,be .subject:to the. usual censorship.6 ; . These proposed regulations were presented to the foreign nations in question and were-accepted in entirety by the goveriment# of Austria * and Bervie.® ;They were accepted with reservations by the governments of Russia, Germany, Japan,-France, a W & r e a t Britain. The.Turkish Government alone refused to consider them* The ^ssl a p Government qualified its acceptance by • stating that dispatches, of a diplomatic a M consular nature "mustrbe''presented':to: postal ami .telegraphic officials clearly marked as belonging to such diplomatic and consular officials* ^ . . .Th@= German Government in its acceptance of the proposals took the position that no correspondence, even under seal of office, between,,consuls was inviolable and that correspondence, between neutral consuls and govern ments other than their own was not to be"permitted•' All letters of American consuls to the American Department of StAte were to be sent through the o mted States -— -A-— •—- telegram from William J. Bryan to the American Ambassador in Austria-Hungary, Frederic C* Penfield, November £6, 1914, Foreign Relations of the United States, i&ii, pp; b^-43. - Frederic C. Penfield to William J. Bryan, Decem ber 8, 1914, Ibid., p. 543. A: : - The American Minister in Servia, Charles J. Vopicka, to William J . Bryan, December 24, 1914, Ibid.. p. 543. 9 The American Ambassador in Russia, George T. Marye, to William J. Bryan, December 11, 1914, Ibid.> p. 543. -94- Embassy.^ The Japanese acceptance was acxilfled by retaining the right to examine all diplomatie and consular mails thought to contain prohibited matter and the right to withhold application of the proposed regulations in any locality blockaded or occupied by troops. ^ , . The British and French modifications were practical ly identical. Those submitted to Ambassador Page by the British Foreign'Office wdrei . (1) That;the United States Government should formally .recognise that consular officers have no claim as such to the exemption in question and that the present concession is made purely as an . act of friendship, be tween the tv/o countries. . - (y) That the extension of the privilege of exemption to,consuls shall be strictly confined to consuls d£ haxito-; . :: ' : . . '' ; (5) His Majesty* s"Government are compelled by . the.necessities;of the military situation to re quest the United States Government to be so good as to give a'written guarantee that there shall be strict observance of the rule that no private correspondence.of individuals or of firms shall be forwarded„to or fro# diplomatic or consular officers under official, cover or seal.-1-2 The.American Ambassador in Germany, James W. Gerard, to William'J. Bryan, February 10, 1915, Ibid.* 1915, Supplement, p. 741. '• I- " < . •' • . : L- • - V . V- - - The Aerican /ambassador" in, Japan, George W. Guthrie, to William J. Bryan, February ’23, ‘1915, Ibid., p. 742. ' Sir M ward Grey to Walter Hines Page, February 6, 1915: Ibid.. Do. 741-42. BIBLIOGBAPM PRIMARY SOURCES nAgreement between the British and Swedish Post Offices Concerning the Direct Exchange of Parcels by Parcel Post, May 10 and "26, 1904.M Great Britain Foreign Office. ^British and Foreign State Papers. Majesty1s Stationery Office by Harrison and Sons, 1908. " nConvention between Great.Britain and Sweden and Horway Providing for the Se ttlesint by'Arbitration of Certain Classes of C^estlons which May Arise between the respective Governments, August 11, 1904.n Great Britain Foreign Office, British and Foreign State Paners. XCVII . (1903-1904). London: Printed for His Majesty's Stationery Office by Harrison and Sons, 1908. ”Correspondence between the British and Swedish Govern ments on. the Subject of.the Detention by the Swedish Government'of the British Transit Mail to Russia as a Reprisal for the Search of Parcels Mails by the British Government.^ Great Britain Stationery. Office, 1916. . :.,y..,v " . "Inviolability of Postal Correspondence.% The Hague Peace Conference' of 1907. "The Eleventh Hague Convention,H frj&Qealmzs of The Hague; Peace 3 vols» Now York: Oxford Urm i varsity Press, 192 Mededeelingen van den Minister van Buiteniandsche 2aken Aan de Gtaten-Generaal. April 1918-June 1919. Tim Hague, 1919. -§6~ Recue11 de dlverses communications du Mlnlsterle des Affaires Etraneer aux Etats-Generaux nar rapport a la neutralite des Pavs-Bas et au respect du droit des Gens. The Hague, September 1916. “Universal Postal Convention of 1891." United States -,N: Department of State.- United States Statutes at Large. -XXVIII. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1893. “Universal Postal Convention'of 1897.A United States Post- Office Department. Annual Report of the Post- Office Department. Report of the Postmaster General. • Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1897. ! ' ' - “Universal Postal Convention of 1906.“ United States DepartmentroflState. United States Statutes at Large. XXXV. 1 Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1909* United States Department of. State. Papers-Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. 1914-1918. Supplements. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1988-1933. United States Naval War College. International Law Situations with Solutions and Notes. 1901- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1929.' United States Post Office Departments Post Office Depart ment Annual Reports 1915. Washingtoni United States Government Printing Office, 1916. Savage, Carlton. Policy of the United States Toward M^itilSe fiommo^ce in War. 1914-1918. With Documents. 2. vols. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. Scott> James Brown. Prise Cases Decided in the United States Supreme Court 1789-1918. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1923. " ‘ - 97- BECOWDARY SOURCES BOOKS Garner, James Milford. International Law and the World War. 2 vols. London; Longmans, Green and Company, 1920. Lawrence, 1. J.y, War and Neutrality in the Far East. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1904. Moore, John Bassett. A Digest of International Law. VII. Washington; United States Government Printing \bffice, Oppenheim, L. International Law (Fourth Edition). Edited by Arnold D. McNair. London; Longmans, Green, and"Company, Limited, 1926. Vandenbosch, amry. The Neutrality of the Netherlands During the World War. Grand Rapids: Y/m. B. Eerdmuns Publishing Company, 1927. PAMPHLETS British Foreign Office. The Mails As a German War 'Weapon (Memorandum on the Censorship of Mails on Neutral Ships). London; Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1916. Bunsen, Maurice De. Memorandum on the American Note Dealing with the Censorship of Mails. London; Jus. Truscott and Sons, Limited, 1916. Cecil, Lord Robert. Why Mail Censorship is Vital to Britain (An interview with the Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, British Minister of Blockade, by Arthur S. Draper of the New York Tribune). London: Jas. Truscott and Sons, Limited, 1916. Hume-Williams, 1L E. International Law and the Blockade. London: Sir Joseph Couston and Sons, Limited, 1916 —08— PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS British Foreign Office. ’’List of Contraband (Second Edition) Revised a M Brought up to November 5, 1915, Showing the Date When Each Article Was Declared Absolute or Conditional Contraband.” American Journal of Inter national Law. Special Supplement X. October, 1916, pp. 20—48. Bryan, William J. ^United States Pair to All.” The New York Times Current History. The European War. II. p. 1176. Kershey, Aeos S. “The So-Called Inviolability of the Mails.11 ^ Xi The New York Times. 1914-1916. V EIT-U. 1136 -25 C5 ^ 979/ a 39 00 1 00 128 1693b y ? 3 S ' £ - 2— E=t7-n. i''36 '2S cs 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 . (? n c (/) 2 O T H ^ H H vC > "n3J>>z > --jOOcOO) -n NO CO cn H O m ^ c " 3 z x > O > 2 Xt tr o II z cr i x O VO r u - os n < c c X IV 7 ui C? IV H I m NOIlVlIinkN tiO SS01 | o y tiOJ Q30i,wH3 38 HIM | 'V 001$ JO 3jJ V lL3>IOOd >008 HOWJ QtiVD SIHX JaOH3W XON OO