Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2Various
History
Current History: A Monthly Magazine of the New York Times, May 1918: Vol. VIII, Part I, No. 2
Various
World War, 1914-1918
It is our earnest desire to safeguard to the fullest extent the
interests of Holland and of her nationals. By exercising in this
crisis our admitted right to control all property within our
territory we do no wrong to Holland. The manner in which we
proposed to exercise this right and our proposals made to
Holland concurrently therewith, cannot, I believe, fail to
evidence to Holland the sincerity of our friendship toward her.
The seizure of the Dutch ships was accomplished without friction on
March 20 by manning them with American naval officers, with the
co-operation of the United States Shipping Board. The Dutch crews were
released, and many of the officers and sailors returned to Holland a few
days later.
The action of the American and British authorities produced much
agitation in Holland; the Dutch newspapers bitterly denounced the action
as unwarranted. A statement appeared in the Official Gazette of the
Netherlands Government on March 30 in which the seizure was
characterized as an act of violence. The statement asserted that the act
was "indefensible from the viewpoint of international law and
unjustifiable." Denial was made that an agreement failed through German
pressure. The Dutch official statement ended as follows:
The powers in question, owing to the loss of ships, felt
constrained to replace the tonnage by obtaining the disposal of
a very large number of ships which belonged not to them but to
the Netherlands. They became aware that the Netherlands
Government could not permit the ships to sail in the interest of
the associated Governments except on the conditions imposed by
neutrality, but which were, in the judgment of the Governments,
not sufficiently in accordance with their interests. Therefore,
they decided to seize the Dutch merchant fleet in so far as it
lay within their power.
The Netherlands Government deems it its duty, especially in
serious times such as the present, to speak with complete
candor. It voices the sentiments of the entire Dutch Nation,
which sees in the seizure an act of violence which it will
oppose with all the energy of its conviction and its wounded
national feeling.
According to the Presidential statement, this procedure offers
Holland ample opportunity to obtain bread grain. This is so only
apparently; for would it not be an irresponsible act, after the
experiences of Dutch ships in American and British ports, to
permit other ships to sail to these ports without adequate
guarantees that these experiences shall not occur?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account