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
The German Foreign Office presented to the diplomats in Berlin a
memorandum dated Oct. 10 calling attention to violations of and
changes in the Declaration of London by the British Government, and
inquiring as to the attitude of the United States toward such action
on the part of the Allies. The substance of the memorandum was
forthwith telegraphed to the department on Oct. 22, and was replied to
shortly thereafter to the effect that the United States had withdrawn
its suggestion, made early in the war, that for the sake of uniformity
the Declaration of London should be adopted as a temporary code of
naval warfare during the present war, owing to the unwillingness of
the belligerents to accept the declaration without changes and
modifications, and that thenceforth the United States would insist
that the rights of the United States and its citizens in the war
should be governed by the existing rules of international law.
As this Government is not now interested in the adoption of the
Declaration of London by the belligerents, the modifications by the
belligerents in that code of naval warfare are of no concern to it,
except as they adversely affect the rights of the United States and
those of its citizens as defined by international law. In so far as
those rights have been infringed the department has made every effort
to obtain redress for the losses sustained.
_(20) Generally unfriendly attitude of Government toward Germany and
Austria._
If any American citizens, partisans of Germany and Austria-Hungary,
feel that this Administration is acting in a way injurious to the
cause of those countries, this feeling results from the fact that on
the high seas the German and Austro-Hungarian naval power is thus far
inferior to the British. It is the business of a belligerent operating
on the high seas, not the duty of a neutral, to prevent contraband
from reaching an enemy.
Those in this country who sympathize with Germany and Austria-Hungary
appear to assume that some obligation rests upon this Government, in
the performance of its neutral duty, to prevent all trade in
contraband, and thus to equalize the difference due to the relative
naval strength of the belligerents. No such obligation exists; it
would be an unneutral act, an act of partiality on the part of this
Government to adopt such a policy if the Executive had the power to
do so. If Germany and Austria-Hungary cannot import contraband from
this country it is not, because of that fact, the duty of the United
States to close its markets to the Allies. The markets of this country
are open upon equal terms to all the world, to every nation,
belligerent or neutral.
The foregoing categorical replies to specific complaints is sufficient
answer to the charge of unfriendliness to Germany and Austria-Hungary.
I am, my dear Senator, very sincerely yours,
W.J. BRYAN.
THE HOUSE WITH SEALED DOORS
By EDITH M. THOMAS.
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