the steps necessary to avoid them, and, in the event that they should unhappily occur, will be prepared to make full reparation for every act which under the rules of international law constitutes a violation of neutral rights. As stated in its communication of October 22, 1914, "this Government will insist that the rights and duties of the United States and its citizens in the present war be defined by the existing rules of international law and the treaties of the United States, irrespective of the provisions of the Declaration of London, and that this Government reserves to itself the right to enter a protest or demand in each case in which those rights and duties so defined are violated or their free exercise interfered with, by the authorities of the British Government." In conclusion you will reiterate to His Majesty's Government that this statement of the views of the Government of the United States is made in the most friendly spirit, and in accordance with the uniform candor which has characterized the relations of the two Governments in the past, and which has been in large measure the foundation of the peace and amity existing between the two nations without interruption for a century. (Dip. Corr. 69-72.) BRYAN. No. 37. First American note, March 31, 1915, in regard to the "William P. Frye." The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador at Berlin. You are instructed to present the following note to the German Foreign Office: Under instructions from my Government I have the honor to present a claim for $228,059.54, with interest from January 28, 1915, against the German Government on behalf of the owners and captain of the American sailing vessel William P. Frye for damages suffered by them on account of the destruction of that vessel on the high seas by the German armed cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich, on January 28, 1915. The facts upon which this claim arises and by reason of which the German Government is held responsible by the Government of the United States for the attendant loss and damages are briefly as follows: The William P. Frye, a steel sailing vessel of 3,374 tons gross tonnage, owned by American citizens and sailing under the United States flag and register, cleared from Seattle, Wash., November 4, 1914, under charter to M. H. Houser, of Portland, Oreg., bound for Queenstown, Falmouth, or Plymouth for orders, with a cargo consisting solely of 186,950 bushels of wheat owned by the aforesaid Houser and consigned unto order or to its assigns," all of which appears from the ship's papers which were taken from the vessel at the time of her destruction by the commander of the German cruiser. 66 On January 27, 1915, the Prinz Eitel Friedrich encountered the Frye on the high seas, compelled her to stop, and sent on board an armed boarding party, who took possession. After an examination of the ship's papers the commander of the cruiser directed that the cargo be thrown overboard, but subsequently decided to destroy the vessel, and on the following morning, by his order, the Frye was sunk. The claim of the owners and captain consists of the following items: Value of ship, equipment, and outfit..... Personal effects of Capt. H. H. Kiehne. Total .$150,000.00 39,759.54 500.00 37,500.00 .$228,059.54 By direction of my Government, I have the honor to request that full reparation be made by the German Government for the destruction of the William P. Frye by the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich. (Dip. Corr. 87.) BRYAN. No. 38. German memorandum, April 4, 1915, concerning the British restraint of sea-borne commerce with Germany and the American exportation of war material. The German Ambassador to the Secretary of State. The various British Orders in Council have one-sidedly modified the generally recognized principles of international law in a way which arbitrarily stops the commerce of neutral nations with Germany. Even before the last British Order in Council, the shipment of conditional contraband, especially food supplies, to Germany was practically impossible. Prior to the protest sent by the American to the British Government on December 28 last, such a shipment did not actually take place in a single case. Even after this protest the Imperial Embassy knows of only a single case in which an American shipper has ventured to make such a shipment for the purpose of legitimate sale to Germany. Both ship and cargo were immediately seized by the English and are being held in an English port under the pretext of an order of the German Federal Council (Bundesrat) regarding the grain trade, although this resolution of the Federal Council relates exclusively to grain and flour, and not to other foodstuffs, besides making an express exception with respect to imported foodstuffs, and although the German Government gave the American Government an assurance, and proposed a special organization whereby the exclusive consumption by the civilian population is absolutely guaranteed. Under the circumstances the seizure of the American ship was inadmissible according to recognized principles of international law. Nevertheless the United States Government has not to date secured the release of the ship and cargo, and has not, after a duration of the war of eight months, succeeded in protecting its lawful trade with Germany. Such a long delay, especially in matters of food supply, is equivalent to an entire denial. The Imperial Embassy must therefore assume that the United States Government acquiesces in the violations of international law by Great Britain. Then there is also the attitude of the United States in the question of the exportation of arms. The Imperial Government feels sure that the United States Government will agree that in questions of neutrality it is necessary to take into consideration not only the formal aspect of the case, but also the spirit in which the neutrality is carried out. The situation in the present war differs from that of any previous war. Therefore any reference to arms furnished by Germany in former wars is not justified, for then it was not a question whether war material should be supplied to the belligerents, but who should supply it in competition with other nations. In the present war all nations having a war material industry worth mentioning are either involved in the war themselves or are engaged in perfecting their own armaments, and have therefore laid an embargo against the exportation of war material. The United States is accordingly the only neutral country in a position to furnish war materials. The conception of neutrality is thereby given a new purport, independently of the formal question of hitherto existing law. In contradiction thereto, the United States is building up a powerful arms industry in the broadest sense, the existing plants not only being worked but enlarged by all available means, and new ones built. The international conventions for the protection of the rights of neutral nations doubtless sprang from the necessity of protecting the existing industries of neutral nations as far as possible from injury in their business. But it can in no event be in accordance with the spirit of true neutrality if, under the protection of such international stipulations, an entirely new industry is created in a neutral state, such as is the development of the arms industry in the United States, the business whereof, under the present conditions, can benefit only the belligerent powers. This industry is actually delivering goods only to the enemies of Germany. The theoretical willingness to supply Germany also if shipments thither were possible, does not alter the case. If it is the will of the American people that there shall be a true neutrality, the United States will find means of preventing this one-sided supply of arms or at least of utilizing it to protect legitimate trade with Germany, especially that in foodstuffs. This view of neutrality should all the more appeal to the United States Government because the latter enacted a similar policy toward Mexico. On February 4, 1914, President Wilson, according to a statement of a Representative in Congress in the Committee for Foreign Affairs of December 30, 1914, upon the lifting of the embargo on arms to Mexico, declared that we should stand for genuine neutrality, considering the surrounding facts of the case. He then held that "in that case, because Carranza had no ports, while Huerta had them and was able to import these materials, that it was our duty as a nation to treat (Carranza and Huerta) upon an equality if we wished to observe the true spirit of neutrality as compared with a mere paper neutrality." If this view were applied to the present case, it would lead to an embargo on the exportation of arms. (Dip. Corr. 73-74.) No. 39. First German note, April 5, 1915, in regard to the "William P. Frye." * The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the American Ambassador. The undersigned has the honor to make reply to the note of his Excellency, Mr. James W. Gerard, Ambassador, the United States America, dated the 3d instant, foreign office No. 2892, relative to claims for damages for the sinking of the American merchant vessel William P. Frye by the German auxiliary cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich. According to the reports which have reached the German Government the commander of the Prinz Eitel Friedrich stopped the William P. Frye on the high seas January 27, 1915, and searched her. He found on board a cargo of wheat consigned to Queenstown, Falmouth, or Plymouth to order. After he had first tried to remove the cargo from the William P. Frye he took the ship's papers and her crew on board and sank ship. It results from these facts that the German commander acted quite in accordance with the principles of international law as laid down in the Declaration of London and the German prize ordinance. The ports of Queenstown, Falmouth, and Plymouth, whither the ship visited was bound, are strongly fortified English coast places, which, moreover, serve as bases for the British naval forces. The cargo of wheat being food or foodstuffs, was conditional contraband within the meaning of article 24, No. 1, of the Declaration of London, and article 23, No. 1, of the German prize ordinance, and was therefore to be considered as destined for the armed forces of the enemy, pursuant to articles 33 and 34 of the Declaration of London and articles 32 and 33 of the German prize ordinance, and to be treated as contraband pending proof of the contrary. This proof was certainly not capable of being adduced at the time of the visiting of the vessel, since the cargo papers read to order. This, however, furnished the conditions under which, pursuant to article 49 of the Declaration of London and article 113 of the German prize ordinance the sinking of the ship was permissible, since it was not possible for the auxiliary cruiser to take the prize into a German port without involving danger to its cwn security or the success of its operations. The duties devolving upon the cruiser before destruction of the ship, pursuant to article 50 of the Declaration of London and article 116 of the German prize ordinance, were fulfilled by the cruiser in that it took on board all the persons found on the sailing vessel, as well as the ship's papers. The legality of the measures taken by the German commander is furthermore subject to examination by the German prize court pursuant to article 51 of the Declaration of London and section 1, No. 2, of the German Code of Prize Procedure. These prize proceedings will be instituted before the prize court at Hamburg as soon as the ship's papers are received and will comprise the settlement of questions whether the destruction of the cargo and the ship was necessary within the meaning of article 49 of the Declaration of London; whether the property sunk was liable to capture; and whether, or to what extent, indemnity is to be awarded the owners. In the trial the owners of ship and cargo would be at liberty, pursuant to article 34, paragraph 3, of the Declaration of London, to adduce proof that *See No. 37. the cargo of wheat had an innocent destination and did not, therefore, have the character of contraband. If such proof is not adduced, the German Government would not be liable for any compensation whatever, according to the general principles of international law. However, the legal situation is somewhat different in the light of the special stipulations applicable to the relations between Germany and the United States since article 13 of the Prussian-American treaty of friendship and commerce of July 11, 1799, taken in connection with article 12 of Prussian-American treaty of commerce and navigation of May 1, 1828, provides that contraband belonging to the subjects or citizens of either party cannot be confiscated by the other in any case but only detained or used in consideration of payment of the full value of the same. On the ground of this treaty stipulation which is as a matter of course binding on the German prize court the American owners of ship and cargo would receive compensation even if the court should declare the cargo of wheat to be contraband. Nevertheless the approaching prize proceedings are not rendered superfluous since the competent prize court must examine into the legality of the capture and destruction and also pronounce upon the standing of the claimants and the amount of indemnity. The undersigned begs to suggest that the ambassador bring the above to the knowledge of his Government and avails himself, etc. (Dip. Corr. 87-88.) (Signed) JAGOW. No. 40. British memorandum, April 8, 1915, in reference to the Wilhelmina.' 66 The Prime Minister to the American Ambassador. His Majesty's Government share the desire of the United States Government for an immediate settlement of the case of the Wilhelmina. This American ship laden with foodstuffs left New York for Hamburg on January 22nd. She called at Falmouth of her own accord on February 9th and her cargo was detained as prize on February 11th. The writ instituting prize court proceedings was issued on February 27th, and claimed that the cargo should be condemned as contraband of war. No proceedings were taken or even threatened against the ship herself, and in the ordinary course the cargo would have been unloaded when seized so that the ship would be free to leave. The owners of the cargo, however, have throughout objected to the discharge of the cargo and it is because of this objection that the ship is still at Falmouth with the cargo on board. His Majesty's Government have formally undertaken that even should the condemnation of the cargo as contraband be secured in the prize court they would none the less compensate the owners for any loss sustained in consequence of the ship having been stopped and proceedings taken against the cargo. It was understood at the time that the proceedings in the prize court would be in the nature of a test case, the decision in which would govern the treatment of any subsequent shipments of food supplies to Germany in similar circumstances. Since then the situation has, however, materially changed by the issue of the Order in Council of March 11, 1915, and the measures taken thereunder which See Nos. 20 and 25. |