The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915Various
History
The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Moreover, there is no instance of the United States acquiescing in
Great Britain's seizure of copper shipments. In every case in which it
has been done vigorous representations have been made to the British
Government, and the representatives of the United States have pressed
for the release of the shipments.
_(6) Submission without protest to interference with American trade to
neutral countries in conditional and absolute contraband._
The fact that the commerce of the United States is interrupted by
Great Britain is consequent upon the superiority of her navy on the
high seas. History shows that whenever a country has possessed that
superiority our trade has been interrupted and that few articles
essential to the prosecution of the war have been allowed to reach its
enemy from this country. The department's recent note to the British
Government, which has been made public, in regard to detentions and
seizures of American vessels and cargoes, is a complete answer to this
complaint.
Certain other complaints appear aimed at the loss of profit in trade,
which must include at least in part trade in contraband with Germany,
while other complaints demand the prohibition of trade in contraband,
which appears to refer to trade with the Allies.
_(7) Submission without protest to interruption of trade in
conditional contraband consigned to private persons in Germany and
Austria, thereby supporting the policy of Great Britain to cut off all
supplies from Germany and Austria._
As no American vessel, so far as known, has attempted to carry
conditional contraband to Germany or Austria-Hungary, no ground of
complaint has arisen out of the seizure or condemnation by Great
Britain of an American vessel with a belligerent destination. Until a
case arises and the Government has taken action upon it, criticism is
premature and unwarranted. The United States in its note of Dec. 28 to
the British Government strongly contended for the principle of freedom
of trade in articles of conditional contraband not destined to the
belligerent's forces.
_(8) Submission to British interference with trade in petroleum,
rubber, leather, wool, &c._
Petrol and other petroleum products have been proclaimed by Great
Britain as contraband of war. In view of the absolute necessity of
such products to the use of submarines, aeroplanes, and motors, the
United States Government has not yet reached the conclusion that they
are improperly included in a list of contraband. Military operations
today are largely a question of motive power through mechanical
devices. It is therefore difficult to argue successfully against the
inclusion of petroleum among the articles of contraband. As to the
detention of cargoes of petroleum going to neutral countries, this
Government has, thus far, successfully obtained the release in every
case of detention or seizure which has been brought to its attention.
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