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
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 the
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 have
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 such rules may be violated by them in future.
From the 4th of August last to the 3d of January the number of
steamships proceeding from the United States for Holland, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, and Italy has been 773. Of these there are 45 which
have had consignments of cargoes placed in the prize court, while of
the ships themselves only eight have been placed in the prize court,
and one of these has since been released.
It is, however, essential under modern conditions that where there is
real ground for suspecting the presence of contraband the vessel
should be brought into port for examination. In no other way can the
right of search be exercised, and but for this practice it would have
to be completely abandoned.
Information was received by us that special instructions had been
given to ship rubber from the United States under another designation
to escape notice, and such cases have occurred in several instances.
Only by search in a port can such cases, when suspected, be discovered
and proved.
The necessity for examination in a port may also be illustrated by a
hypothetical instance connected with cotton, which has not yet
occurred. Cotton is not specifically mentioned in your Excellency's
note, but I have seen public statements made in the United States that
the attitude of his Majesty's Government with regard to cotton has
been ambiguous and thereby responsible for depression in the cotton
trade.
There has never been any foundation for this allegation. His Majesty's
Government have never put cotton on the list of contraband; they have
throughout the war kept it on the free list, and on every occasion
when questioned on the point they have stated their intention of
adhering to this practice. But information has reached us that,
precisely because we have declared our intention of not interfering
with cotton, ships carrying cotton will be specially selected to carry
concealed contraband, and we have been warned that copper will be
concealed in bales of cotton.
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