nication nor the one which followed it conceded in the slightest degree the American demands.

The first declared purpose of the British note of January 7 was to "clear the ground and remove some misconceptions that seem to exist." The author, Sir Edward Grey, then accepted the principle that a belligerent should not interfere with trade between neutrals unless such interference were necessary to protect the belligerent's national safety. Great Britain, he continued, was ready to keep its action within these limits on the understanding that it retained the right to interfere in what was not "bona fide" trade between neutrals but really contraband destined for the enemy's country. Whenever its action unintentionally exceeded this principle, Great Britain, he said, was ready to make redress.

Sir Edward then told us that we were wrong in assuming that our industries were suffering from the loss of their usual market. As conclusive proof he cited the figures of export from New York to Italy, Holland and Scandinavia. In November, 1914, we exported to Denmark $7,100,000 of goods, compared with $560,000 in November, 1913. We sent $2,860,000 to Sweden, compared with $380,000. We sent $2,320,000 to Norway, compared with $480,000. We sent $4,780,000 to Italy, compared with $2,980,000. We sent $3,960,000 to Holland, compared with $4,390,000.

*The "necessity of protecting the belligerent's national safety" is the excuse offered for every wrong committed in this war.

The note passed over, naturally, the fact that our November exports to Germany were only $40,000, compared with $48,000,000 in 1913, or that our exports to Austria fell from $1,970,000 in November, 1913, to nothing in 1914. It did not inform its readers that the figures he gave were those of our exports that started for European neutrals. How much got past His Majesty's cruisers was another story.

Moreover, the note implied that our larger exports to the Scandinavian countries consisted solely of articles destined for Germany, and hence subject to British interference. But, according to another part of the same note, Great Britain was interfering only with "contraband destined for the enemy's country." By that test Britain could lawfully have interfered with only such of the excess exports to European neutrals as represented absolute contraband-since the Declaration of London allows neutrals to receive conditional contraband unmolested-and even such a course would have assumed that all such merchandise had a German destination.

As a matter of fact, the excess of exports to European neutrals was to some degree destined for Germany. The point is that free goods and conditional contraband had a right so to move. However, much of the excess was for the neutrals themselves. They had need of larger imports from us than ever before. For example, they had formerly bought from Germany their copper products. Germany was keeping her copper at home. Therefore

the neutrals needed to import raw copper in larger quantities than before, in order to make their own copper products. Our copper exports to neutrals were the most suspicious thing Sir Edward Grey found. Similarly, we exported more cotton to the neutrals because their own mills were making cotton piece goods that had been coming from Germany, and supplying foreign markets to which Germany was denied access.

Above all, the neutrals needed more foodstuffs. East Germany usually exports large quantities of wheat flour and of rye to Scandinavia. Not only was this cut off, but the ordinary shipments of wheat and rye from Russia dropped, first because of Russia's export embargo (finally lifted) and later, to a degree, because of Germany's control of the Baltic Sea. The closed Dardanelles kept Russian Black Sea supplies locked up. Both Russian and German supplies had to be replaced by supplies from the United States.

The British note has only the following brief reference to foodstuffs:

"With regard to the seizure of foodstuffs to which your Excellency refers, His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit that foodstuffs should not be detained and put into a prize court without presumption that they are intended for the armed forces of the enemy or the enemy government. We believe that this rule has been adhered to in practice hitherto, but, if the United States Government has instances to the contrary, we are prepared to examine them, and it is our present intention to adhere to the rule

though we cannot give an unlimited and unconditional undertaking in view of the departure by those against whom we are fighting from hitherto accepted rules of civilization and humanity and the uncertainty as to the extent to which rules may be violated by them in future."

In the face of the conditions which we have reviewed, we are touched by the simple "belief" of His Majesty's Government that they had adhered to international law hitherto.

However, Britain was preparing the way to institute severer measures, should the need arise. The italicized clauses can be translated into ordinary English. They mean: "We cannot unconditionally agree to continue to adhere to the limits of law. Our enemy has departed from the rules of civilization: therefore we may insist upon having a free hand in the future."

Το

Here was the theory that England was fighting our battle, and that of the civilized world. To assume that the United States would calmly agree to this proposition was a clear imputation that this country was not genuinely neutral and would be willing so to confess.

The obstructive tactics of the British Government were to be put to a severe test by the case of the American steamship Wilhelmina, with which we shall now deal.

CHAPTER IV

THE WILHELMINA-A TEST CASE

Early in 1915 the question whether our merchants could send foodstuffs to Germany, when not intended for the government or for the armed forces of that country, was sharply tested in a case which merits its own corner in history. This was the case of the steamship Wilhelmina. America lost the case.

The Wilhelmina was of American registry, and was under charter to the W. T. Green Commission Company of St. Louis, a concern engaged previously to the war in exporting provisions to Germany. Noting the statement of Sir Edward Grey in his January 7 note, that Great Britain was not considering foodstuffs contraband unless destined for the government or armed forces of the enemy, the St. Louis merchants determined to take advantage of this expression in an effort toward the resumption of their trade. Accordingly they loaded on the Wilhelmina a cargo of grain, flour and provisions to the value of $200,000, and despatched the vessel from Brooklyn on January 22, with sailing papers for Hamburg and under conditions such as to put the British policy very clearly to the test.

The goods were not consigned "to or for an agent of the enemy state," or even, recalling the wording