Of all our exports, the most attention has fallen to the export of war munitions. We have heard a great deal of the moral and legal question as to whether a neutral should or may send abroad weapons for killing citizens of a, nation with whom we are at peace. Such exportation is said to be more unjustified, because circumstances are such that only one of the belligerents, the Allies, can get supplies from us, while Germany cannot. On this ground we are charged with being unneutral as well as inhuman and false to our professions of being haters of war. The question is perplexing millions of Americans. No quick judgment can be passed upon it. Nor can any one person judge for another. Each decides for himself according to the combination which his own mind makes of such conflicting elements as humanity, our rights, our obligations, our precedents, our future and our material interests.

Before this war had been many months under way, it became apparent that it was to be largely a matter of ammunition. It is an artillery war. Under the hail of German shells the fall of Liege, Namur, Antwerp and Maubeuge was a matter of days. Then Von Kluck was stopped in his rush for Paris partly because of a lack of ammunition. All winter the armies lay facing each other, inactive except for sporadic attacks, while Krupp, Skoda,. Vickers, Schneider, the Bethlehem Steel Company and the Japanese arms and ordnance works were rushing through their orders to make ready for the spring campaign. Kitchener's remark that he did not know when the war would end, but that it would begin in May, was typical for all the contestants. They were waiting less for the firm dry ground of May than for the spring crop of shells.

The May days were battles of artillery. It was the terrible bombardment of British guns that cleared the way for the advance at Neuve Chapelle. It was heavy German guns that tore Hill 60 like a volcanic eruption when the British tried to hold it. French Seventy-fives in May buried German trenches before they were captured. Przemysl was "sprayed" with Teutonic shells and the fortress which Russian infantry had besieged for months fell before German artillery in as many days. It was lack of ammunition that forced Russia---largely cut off from foreign supplies by the Dardanelles and German control of the Baltic and with Archangel long closed---to lose all Galicia, Bukowina and Poland in the summer months of 1915.

Under these conditions it was natural for the Allies, who controlled the seas and who alone could keep up communication with us, early to close contracts with our main ammunition, arms and ordnance factories. The ammunition people were booked full for a long period ahead. Some big guns have been ordered, mostly from Bethlehem Steel, but the Allies' factories were better able to turn out the guns. It was shells they needed, particularly shrapnel. The big guns and small arms that we exported have gone primarily to Russia, because Russia is short on factories for war materials, having relied on the French and German makers; and because Russia in her Masurian and Galician defeats, when whole armies were captured, suffered the loss of vast quantities of the tools of war.

Shells were the principal demand. Shrapnel shells can be made by anyone with a lathe who can get the steel to work with. This country has an unlimited supply of steel and a very large number of machine shops which, due to the slack times in our industrial situation at home, were glad to get the shell contracts that were sublet to them by great contractors for the foreign governments, like the Canadian Car and Foundry Company. There is no doubt that these shell orders have been of considerable financial aid to great industries like those which manufacture electrical supplies, to the railroad equipment companies which at the beginning of the war noted the disappearance of incipient railroad orders, and to many a small machine shop throughout the land.

Before the end of 1914 a very large number of our industrial concerns were interested, directly or indirectly, in manufacturing implements of war. We have a large population of German or Austrian extraction who were outraged at the prospect of our turning allies of the Allies; and the practical effect of the situation was, they claimed, nothing less than this. When Congress opened in the first week of December bills prohibiting the export of arms to belligerents were introduced in both the House and the Senate, the bill of Senator Hitchcock of Nebraska being the one to which most attention has been paid. It never got beyond the Committee of Foreign Affairs, to which it was referred; the same fate befell Senator Works' later bill and also the various House measures.

A great many American manufacturers were unwilling to embark upon the manufacture of munitions of war without knowing that this was approved by our State Department. Many letters were sent the Department on the matter and on October 15 it issued a statement of its position. It said that a citizen of the United States could sell to a belligerent government or its agents any article of commerce which he chose. The risk he ran was that the goods he shipped, if contraband, would be intercepted and confiscated, if possible, by the belligerent against whom they were to be used. A neutral government is not compelled by international law to interfere with contraband trade from its territory to the belligerents, nor is the President of the United States or any executive department of the government possessed of the power so to interfere. So the statement read.

Official complaints of the German Government were at first directed not against our exportation of arms and ammunition in general, but against our exportation of war implements which were forbidden by international law. On December 8 Count Bernstorff called the attention of the State Department to alleged violations of international law by the British army. It was stated that the British army was using dum-dum bullets. It was claimed that Winchester and the Union Metallic Cartridge Company were engaged in supplying illegal forms of arms and ammunition to the Allies. The State Department was asked to investigate these charges.

On January 8 the State Department answered the German Ambassador. It stated that, while it was willing to take into consideration such assertions as were made in the Ambassador's note, with regard to the British use of dum-dum bullets, it would not investigate such charges or make any comment upon them. Regarding the charge that American companies had been making illegal sorts of ammunition, the specific denial of Winchester and the Union Metallic Cartridge Company was communicated to the Ambassador.

About the middle of December it came to the knowledge of the administration that the president of the Bethlehem Steel Company, C. M. Schwab, had, contracted to deliver twenty submarines to Great Britain during the war. The submarines were to be delivered to Britain in parts, which were to be assembled across the water. The Bethlehem Steel Company apparently figured that this measure would avoid the Hague Convention prohibition which forbids neutrals to construct war vessels for a belligerent. The State Department thought differently and Mr. Schwab, it was reported, agreed to desist.

The other case in which the administration was called upon to decide the legality of the exportation of war supplies was with regard to hydro-aeroplanes.

On January 19 the German Ambassador at Washing wrote the Secretary of State complaining that hydro-aeroplanes were being constructed in the United States and shipped to the Allies. He stated that hydro-aeroplanes were war vessels whose delivery to belligerent states by neutrals should be stopped under Article 8 of the Thirteenth Convention of the Second Hague Conference of October 18, 1907. The answer of the Secretary of State was a nugget of gold in the dry pages of diplomatic correspondence.

Its essential part reads:

"As to the assertion of the character of hydro-aeroplanes, I submit the following comments: The fact that a hydro-aeroplane is fitted with apparatus to rise from and alight upon the sea does not, in my opinion, give it the character of a vessel any more than the wheels attached to an aeroplane fitting it to rise from and alight upon land give the latter the character of a land vehicle."

Presumably, if conditions were reversed and the British were protesting hydro-aeroplanes which were being shipped to Germany, the ingenious German Ambassador would contend that the machines had asbestos fittings on their wings and hence were to be classed as fireflies.

In January the American Government had a second occasion to state its position regarding the exportation of war implements in general. On January 8 Senator Stone of Missouri wrote a letter to the Secretary of State. In this letter be summarized the complaints that he had received from sympathizers with Germany and Austria, regarding the manner in which we had been guarding our neutrality in the war. Complaint No. 9 was that we had exercised "no interference with the sale to Great Britain and her Allies of arms, ammunition, horses, uniforms and other munitions of war, although such sales prolonged the war."

In the answer of the Secretary of State, two weeks later, it was stated that the President of the United States had no power to prevent the sale of ammunition to the belligerents. It was said that it is not the duty of a neutral to restrict trade in munitions of war, and such had never been the policy of this government except in cases of civil strife in neighboring American republics. Germany herself, the answer continued, had been an enormous shipper of arms and ammunition to belligerents, for example, during the Russo-Japanese War. Moreover, Mr. Bryan said, on December 15 the German Ambassador presented a memorandum of his government specifically stating that under international law no exception can be taken to neutral states letting war material go to Germany's enemies. Finally, the answer read, these principles had been laid down by the United States Government in the October 15 proclamation of the Department of State, entitled "Neutrality and the trade in contraband."

The German Government, apparently encouraged by the agitation in this country regarding the export of ammunition, included a reference to it in its first formal note to us: the note of February 16, answering our protest regarding the German War Zone. In this note, the Germans pointed out "very particularly and with the greatest emphasis" that a trade in arms estimated at many hundred million marks had arisen between American manufacturers and Germany's enemies. It was admitted that no formal breach of neutrality could be charged but both the German Government and the German people felt themselves placed at a great disadvantage in that neutrals achieved no success in the assertion of their legal right to innocent trade with Germany while they persisted in their contraband trade with Great Britain. The words were less a protest against our export of arms on principle than against our export of arms to England when we refused to insist upon our right to send food and raw materials to Germany.

This passage in the note of the German Government required no answer. The same cannot be said of an unusual communication from the German Ambassador to the State Department, dated April 4, a short note enclosing a memorandum of the Ambassador on the subject of our arms exports.

The memorandum stated that, because of the British Orders in Council, neutral trade with Germany had been strangled. The Wilhelmina, the first food ship for Germany, had been held up for two months. Such a delay, the Ambassador continued, was equivalent to a denial of the American right to trade. The Imperial Embassy must, therefore, assume that the United States Government acquiesced in the violations of international law by Great Britain. It was claimed that all previous policies of shipping arms to neutrals were inapplicable in this war. The United States was said to be the only neutral nation furnishing war material to belligerents and an entirely new industry was being created in America for this purpose. It was pointed out that the industry was delivering goods only to the enemies of Germany. The least that America could do, the Ambassador said, was to utilize its supplying of arms to England for the purpose of protecting its legitimate trade with Germany, especially in foodstuffs.

Moreover, the memorandum went on, for the United States to put an embargo on the export of arms to belligerents in Europe would be similar to President Wilson's reason for putting an embargo on the exportation of arms in Mexico; namely, in President Wilson's words:

"Because Carranza had no ports, while Huerta had them and was able to import these materials, 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 mere paper neutrality."

The German Ambassador then asserted that this principle, if applied in the present case, would lead to an embargo on the exportation of arms.

On April 21 Mr. Bryan sent to the German Ambassador an answer which the President of the United States had written. It was a proper answer to the memorandum of Count von Bernstorff. It suggested that the relations between the United States and England were not a proper subject of discussion for the German Ambassador. It was assumed that the Ambassador did not intend the clear implication in his note that the United States had not in good faith been performing its duties as a neutral. As a matter of fact, the answer continued, the United States had acquiesced in no violation of its neutral rights. It was shown that this was evidenced by our notes of protest to England. Our impartiality, said the President, was evident by our suggestion to Great Britain and Germany that they should return to the fold of international law. It was denied that the United States Government had the choice of stopping the sale and exportation of arms by its citizens. It was affirmed that under international law, if a country is to maintain its neutrality, it may not during the progress of the war alter its own rules of neutrality. The President said that the placing of an embargo on the trade in arms at the present time would be a direct violation of our neutrality.

In July, 1915, the Austrian Government formally protested our ammunition exports. An answer was sent Austria early in August, similar to the answer sent Count von Bernstorff. The Germans alleged the presence of ammunition on the Lusitania as their justification for torpedoing her. The crux of the present diplomatic correspondence with Germany is the question whether passengers can sail on munitions ships and protect those ships from sudden attack by submarines.

As a matter of fact, the German Government cannot well call upon either international law or its own practices to contest our right to ship arms to belligerent nations. It was in the manufacture of war materials delivered all over the world to nations both at peace and at war that Krupp grew so great that it can now supply most of the needs of the Teutonic Allies, without outside aid. In Article 7, Convention VII, and Article 7, Convention XII, of the Hague Conference of 1907 the right of neutral citizens to ship arms to belligerents is stated. These provisions are but the crystallization of immemorial practice among nations. Kriege, German delegate to that Hague Conference, declared during the proceedings that:

"Neutral states are not bound to forbid their subjects to engage in a commerce which from the point of view of belligerents must be considered illicit."

As for our rights in the matter, they are not lessened by the fact that 20,000,000 or more of our people are of German and Austrian descent, and that all of the ammunition is being used against their brothers in Europe. Our rights are not lessened, nor our neutrality impaired by the circumstance that only one of the belligerents can get our supplies. We are willing to sell to both; but only England can send its ships to take away what it buys. England's advantage is an incident of its sea power and we are under no obligation to deprive it of the advantage which its sea power confers. We have repeatedly in the past refused to lay arms embargoes at the request of belligerents. who were suffering by our war exports. All our arms embargoes in the past have been at times of national peril when it was necessary to conserve our supplies for the home defense; or embargoes for the purpose of discouraging civil contentions in near-by Latin American countries, like Mexico and San Domingo. There is no doubt, the rights and the precedents in the matter are with us.

It is rather upon grounds of humanity that many American neutrals stand with the German sympathizers in this country in the demand that the arms export cease. They cannot reconcile our peace conferences and our peace propaganda with the creation of perhaps the greatest arms industry the world has ever seen. The war might have been over months ago if we had refused to send ammunition. To be sure, it might have been over to the advantage of the prepared Germans, but is it the business of a neutral to worry which side wins the war? Is not German preparedness an advantage which we are in no way obligated to compensate?

There are some features of this mushroom ammunition business that are not attractive. Hotels in New York swarm with brokers soliciting orders from foreign buyers and native producers. Graft and bribery necessarily follow the huge profits in these contracts. We hear strange rumors of attempts to bribe government officials to sell at exorbitant prices discarded Krag-Jorgensen rifles. It is as if a new gold field were discovered.

Some of the up-to-date methods of booming the ammunition trade are less attractive than businesslike. On May 6, 1915, the Cleveland Automatic Machine Company published a double page advertisement in the American Machinist. It announced a special lathe for making a high explosive shell. On one page was given a cut of the lathe and a cross-section of the shell that it made. On the other page is a description of the shell's peculiar properties.

"The material is high in tensile strength and Very Special and has a tendency to fracture into small pieces upon the explosion of the shell. The timing of the fuse for this shell is similar to the shrapnel shell, but it differs in that two explosive acids are used to explode the shell in the large cavity. The combination of these two acids causes terrific explosion, having more power than anything of its kind yet used. Fragments become coated with these acids in exploding and wounds caused by them mean death in terrible agony within four hours if not attended to immediately.

"From what we are able to learn of conditions in the trenches, it is not possible to get medical assistance to anyone in time to prevent fatal results. It is necessary immediately to cauterize the wound if in the body or head, or to amputate if in the limbs, as there seems to be no antidote that will counteract the poison.

"It can be seen from this that this shell is more effective than the regular shrapnel, since the wounds caused by shrapnel balls and fragments in the muscles are not as dangerous, as they have no poisonous element making prompt attention necessary."

It is easy to be shocked by this frank exposition of the death-dealing qualities of an American product. But, after all, this is a perfectly logical advertisement. People are buying shells to kill; therefore the killing qualities of the shells are the qualities to put forward. The advertisement is not directed to the general public, but to the makers and buyers of shells. Makers, if sensible, will make this type of shell. Buyers, if they are wise, will insist upon this Very Special product in their specifications.

Yet, in spite of all sentimental talk against the export of arms, our right to export them cannot be denied or even logically disputed. The pound of flesh is ours. What is more, the law of Venice not only allows us but compels us to take it. In the preamble to the 1907 Hague Convention we read:

"The rules impartially adopted by the neutral powers shall not be altered in principle during the course of the war by one of the neutrals, except in the case where experience shows the necessity for such action in order to safeguard the nation's rights."

It was this to which the President referred in his note to Ambassador Bernstorff, explaining that to place an arms embargo in the middle of the war would be a violation of our neutrality.

There are some tangible advantages that we shall gain from a continuation of the arms industry. Besides employing men in the machine shops who would otherwise be out of work, we are training a large number of mechanics in the rapid production of the weapons of war. They would be a great asset to us in any war in which we might have to engage in the future. Every war of the future will be still more an artillery war than the present. As a French senator says, "the problem is to industrialize war." We are industrializing war. The plants and the men we shall have, trained and ready at the end of this conflict, may be worth to us fifty army corps. They will be worth this to us not only in the unhappy event of war, but also a known reserve power with which to prevent war.

It is frequently said that we must continue our arms exports because we cannot afford to aid in establishing the principle that belligerents in war time shall not get arms from a neutral. Such a principle, it is said, would condemn to helplessness an unprepared nation attacked by a prepared aggressor. The unprepared would be unable to turn to neutrals for arms with which to defend itself.

The argument is sound on general lines, but it has no value when applied specifically to us. In any future war we need fear only a European or Asiatic aggressor, separated from us by a wide expanse of ocean. As a possible supplier of arms, we can think only of one of the nations of western Europe or Japan. No one else makes them. If we in that war cannot command the seas, obviously we shall get no arms or ammunition. If we in that war command the seas, we shall need no aid in arming ourselves. No-one can reach us. Surely our former arms manufacturing facilities, expanded as they have been by the European War, will suffice to keep the navy and the coast defenses supplied with shells. If before the war breaks out we have not enough ammunition for the regular army to repel a surprise landing, we can hardly expect our opponent to politely wait until we go abroad and bring it back.

The real arguments for continuing the manufacture of arms for the Allies are that it is to our present commercial and military interest so to continue, and that it is our duty as a neutral to do so. England would justly accuse us of unneutrality, if without reason, in the midst of the war, we ceased the shipments of arms which our government had publicly approved and upon which, relying on the given word of our government, the Allies have become dependent. There is no doubt that, whatever our personal sentiments, our official actions up to this point have imposed upon us some obligations in the matter.

Upon only one condition can we withdraw from the fulfillment of those obligations, namely,

"In the case where experience shows the necessity for such action in order to safeguard a nation's rights."

If we are ever to learn by experience, we have learned that some action is necessary in order to safeguard our nation's rights. In two strong notes of protest to Great Britain, we stated her violations of our rights. She prevents us from shipping noncontraband to Germany and receiving any goods from Germany at all, in defiance of our right to enjoy such trade via neutral countries even if Britain were to establish that her blockade of German ports is effective. Britain has seriously deranged our trade with the little neutral nations of Europe upon the suspicion that some of the trade may be going through to Germany. We have seen in great detail how deeply these violations of our rights affect our material interests, how little submission to them would accord with our history or our rank as a leading neutral, and how dangerous is such submission for our future welfare.

Therefore, neither Great Britain nor any other nation of the world could blame us if we laid an embargo upon the exportation of arms for the purpose of enforcing our right to trade unhindered with Germany and the neutral nations of Europe, in all but contraband (as defined in a reasonable contraband list) with German destination. Our rights and the rights of neutral nations are that international law be observed, international law as codified and recognized by civilized people in the Declaration of London. Now, in the midst of the conflict, there is no time to frame a new code.

The Allies have placed with us somewhere between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 of arms and equipment orders. That is the precise measure of the power we have over them. If the United States had set out in October to secure a means to force belligerents to, return to the realm of international law, it could not have proceeded more wisely than to publish its October 15 proclamation assuring this country and others of the legitimacy of our arms trade.

There need be no formal session of Congress to declare an arms embargo. The State Department need only intimate that the administration is prepared to call such a session, and the result will be attained. A word to the wise, from the wise and the powerful, is sufficient.

Should the impossible happen and should it be necessary to declare an arms embargo, the country would by no means be plunged into ruin. England could not fight us; that would mean to starve herself. In bringing our own armament up to date, our government could afford to employ the country's arms capacity whose contracts with the Allies would be broken.

That is more than impossible. England would know that an arms embargo might be followed by a food embargo, if necessary to attain our rights. These rights are so incontestable and this means of attaining them is so in accord with even the letter of international law, that a country which has pawned with us its military future would not think of losing so precious a pledge.

In every note that Germany has written she has emphasized that the submarine campaign is a retaliation for the unlawful British measures in holding up food and raw materials for Germany. When both belligerents are breaking the law and each is claiming the acts of the other as justification, the pressure of neutrals must be applied to the one which refuses to join in a return to law and order. Our problem is to compel that joint acceptance of a compromise which we proposed in our note to the belligerents in February. Germany is ready for acceptance; the pressure must be applied to England.

With the attainment of this end---the acceptance of the Declaration of London and its contraband list by England and Germany and the return by Germany to lawful use of her war vessels---both belligerents return to the limits of law. Neutral trade rights are recovered and established for all time. Our excuse for stopping the export of arms ceases. In unhindered access to the arms supplies of the oversea world, barred to Germany, England enjoys a great advantage from her sea power, the only advantage which she can be allowed to enjoy without destroying the rights of those who have had no part in making or prosecuting this war.





My Fellow Countrymen: I suppose that every thoughtful man in America has asked himself during the last troubled weeks what influence the European War may exert upon the United States, and I take the liberty of addressing a few words to you in order to point out that it is entirely within our own choice what its effects upon us will be and to urge very earnestly upon you the sort of speech and conduct which will best safeguard the nation against distress and disaster.

The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say or do. Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned. The spirit of the nation in this critical matter will be determined largely by what individuals and society and those gathered in public meetings do and say, upon what newspapers and magazines contain, upon what our ministers utter in their pulpits and men proclaim as their opinions on the streets.

The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that. there. should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict. Some will wish one nation, others another, to succeed in the momentous struggle. It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it. Those responsible for exciting it will assume a heavy responsibility; responsibility for no less a thing than that the people of the United States, whose love of their country and whose loyalty to its government should unite them as Americans all, bound in honor and affection to think first of her and her interests, may be divided in camps of hostile opinions, hot against each other, involved in the war itself in impulse and opinion, if not in action. Such diversions among us would be fatal to our peace of mind and might seriously stand in the way of the proper performance of our duty as the one great nation at peace, the one people holding itself ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsels of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend.

I venture, therefore, my fellow countrymen, to speak a solemn word of warning to you against that deepest, most subtle, most essential breach of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passionately taking sides. The United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name during these days that are to try men's souls. We must be impartial in thought as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another.

My thought is of America. I am speaking, I feel sure, the earnest wish and purpose of every thoughtful American that this great country of ours, which is, of course, the first in our thoughts and in our hearts, should show herself in this time of peculiar trial a nation fit beyond others to exhibit the fine poise of undisturbed judgment, the dignity of self-control, the efficiency of dispassionate action, a nation that neither sits in judgment upon others nor is disturbed in her own counsels and which keeps herself fit and free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world.

Shall we not resolve to put upon ourselves the restraint which will bring to our people the happiness and the great and lasting influence for peace we covet for them?

Washington, August 18, 1914.



Whereas during the present hostilities the naval forces of His Majesty will co-operate with the French and Russian naval forces; and

Whereas it is desirable that the naval operations of the allied forces so far as they affect neutral ships and commerce should be conducted on similar principles; and

Whereas the governments of France and Russia have informed His Majesty's government that during the present hostilities it is their intention to act in accordance with the provisions of the Convention known as the Declaration of London, signed on the 26th day of February, 1909, so far as may be practicable.

Now, therefore, His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, is pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, that during the present hostilities the Convention known as the Declaration of London shall, subject to the following additions and modifications, be adopted and put in force by His Majesty's government as if the same had been ratified by His Majesty:

The additions and modifications are as follows:

(1) The lists of absolute and conditional contraband contained in the Proclamation dated August 4, 1914, shall be substituted for the lists contained in Articles 22 and 24 of the said Declaration.

(2) A neutral vessel which succeeded in carrying contraband to the enemy with false papers may be detained for having carried such contraband if she is encountered before she has completed her return voyage.

(3) The destination referred to in Article 33 may be inferred from any sufficient evidence, and (in addition to the presumption laid down in Article 34) shall be presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to or for an agent of the enemy state or to or for a merchant or other person under the control of the authorities of the enemy state.

(4) The existence of a blockade shall be presumed to be known

(a) to all ships which sailed from or touched at an enemy port a sufficient time after the notification of the blockade to the local authorities to have enabled the enemy government to make known the existence of the blockade;

(b) to all ships which sailed from or touched at a British or allied port after the publication of the declaration of blockade.

(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 35 of the said Declaration, conditional contraband, if shown to have the destination referred to in Article 33, is liable to capture, to whatever port the vessel is bound and at whatever port the cargo is to be discharged.

(6) The General Report of the Drafting Committee on the said Declaration presented to the Naval Conference and adopted by the conference at the eleventh plenary meeting on February 25, 1909, shall be considered by all prize courts as an authoritative statement of the meaning and intention of the said Declaration, and such courts shall construe and interpret the provisions of the said Declaration by the light of the commentary given therein.



1. During the present hostilities the provisions of the Convention known as the Declaration of London shall, subject to the exclusion of the lists of contraband and non-contraband, and to the modification hereinafter set out, be adopted and put in force by His Majesty's government. The modifications are as follows:

(I) A neutral vessel, with papers indicating a neutral destination, which notwithstanding the destination shown on the papers, proceeds to an enemy port, shall be liable to capture and condemnation if she is encountered before the end of her next voyage.

(II) The destination referred to in Article 33 of the said Declaration shall (in addition to the presumptions laid down in Article 34) be presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to or for an agent of the enemy state.

(III) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 35 of the said Declaration, conditional contraband shall be liable to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port if the goods are consigned "to order," or if the ship's papers do not show who is the consignee of the goods, or if they show a consignee of the goods in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy.

(IV) In the cases covered by the preceding paragraph (III) it shall lie upon the owners of the goods to prove that their destination was innocent.

2. Where it is shown to the satisfaction of one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State that the enemy government is drawing supplies for its armed forces from or through a neutral country, he may direct that in respect of ships bound for a port in that country, Article 35 of the said Declaration shall not apply. Such direction shall be notified in the London Gazette and shall operate until the same is withdrawn. So long as such direction is in force, a vessel which is carrying conditional contraband to a port in that country shall not be immune from capture.



1. No merchant vessel which sailed from her port of departure after the first of March, 1915, shall be allowed to proceed on her voyage to any German port.

Unless the vessel receives a pass enabling her to proceed to some neutral or allied port to be named in the pass, goods on board any such vessel must be discharged in a British port and placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court. Goods so discharged, not being contraband of war, shall, if not requisitioned for the use of His Majesty, be restored by order of the court, upon such terms as the court may in the circumstances deem to be just, to the person entitled thereto.

2. No merchant vessel which sailed from any German port after the first of March, 1915, shall be allowed to proceed on her voyage with any goods on board laden at such port.

All goods laden at such port must be discharged in a British or allied port. Goods so discharged in a British port shall be placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court, and, if not requisitioned for the use of His Majesty, shall be detained or sold under the direction of the prize court. The proceeds of goods so sold shall be paid into court and dealt with in such a manner as the court may in the circumstances deem to be just.

Provided, that no proceeds of the sale of such goods shall be paid out of court until the conclusion of peace, except on the application of the proper officer of the crown, unless it be shown that the goods had become neutral property before the issue of this order.

Provided also, that nothing herein shall prevent the release of neutral property laden at such enemy port on the application of the proper officer of the crown.

3. Every merchant vessel which sailed from her port of departure after the first of March, 1915, on her way to a port, other than a German port, carrying goods with an enemy destination, or which are enemy property, may be required to discharge such goods in a British or allied port. Any goods so discharged in a British port shall be placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court, and, unless they are contraband of war, shall, if not requisitioned for the use of His Majesty, be restored by order of the court, upon such terms as the court may in the circumstances deem to be just to the person entitled thereto.

Provided, that this article shall not apply in any case falling within Articles 2 or 4 of this order.

4. Every merchant vessel which sailed from a port other than a German port after the first of March, 1915, having on board goods which are of enemy origin or are enemy property may be required to discharge such goods in a British or allied port. Goods so discharged in a British port shall be placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court, and if not requisitioned for the use of His Majesty shall be detained or sold under the direction of the prize court. The proceeds of goods so sold shall be paid into court and dealt with in such manner as the court may in the circumstances deem to be just.

Provided, that no proceeds of sale of such goods shall be paid out of court until the conclusion of peace except on the application of the proper officer of the crown, unless it be shown that the goods had become neutral property before the issue of this order.

Provided, also, that nothing herein shall prevent the release of neutral property of enemy origin on the application of the proper officer of the crown.

5. Any person claiming to be interested in, or to have any claim in respect of, any goods (not being contraband of war) placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court under this order, or in the proceeds of such goods, may forthwith issue a writ in the prize court against the proper officer of the crown and apply for an order that the goods should be restored to him, or that their proceeds should be paid to him, or for such other order as the circumstances of the case may require.

The practice and procedure of the prize court shall, so far as applicable, be followed mutatis mutandis in any proceedings consequential upon this order.

6. A merchant vessel which has cleared for a neutral port from a British or allied port, or which has been allowed to pass, having an ostensible destination to a neutral port, and proceeds to an enemy port, shall, if captured on any subsequent voyage, be liable to condemnation.

7. Nothing in this order shall be deemed to affect the liability of any vessel or goods to capture or condemnation independently of this order.

8. Nothing in this order shall prevent the relaxation of the provisions of this order in respect of the merchant vessels of any country which declares that no commerce intended for or originating in Germany or belonging to German subjects shall enjoy the protection of its flag.



Where it is made to appear to the Judge, on the application of the proper officers of the court, that it is desired to requisition on behalf of His Majesty a ship in respect of which no final decree of condemnation has been made, he shall order that the ship shall be appraised, and that upon an undertaking being given in accordance with Rule 5 of this order, the ship shall be released and delivered to the crown.



"In view of the correspondence which has passed between this government and Great Britain and Germany respectively relative to the declaration of a war zone by the German Admiralty, and the use of neutral flags by British merchant vessels, this government ventures to express the hope that the two belligerent governments may, through reciprocal concessions, find a basis for agreement which will relieve neutral vessels engaged in peaceful commerce from the great dangers which they will incur on the high seas adjacent to the coasts of the belligerents.

"The government of the United States respectfully suggests that an agreement in terms like the following might be entered into. This suggestion is not to be regarded as in any sense a proposal made by this government, for it of course fully recognizes that it is not its privilege to propose terms of agreement between Great Britain and Germany, even though the, matter be one in which it and the people of the United States are directly and deeply interested. It is merely venturing to take the liberty which it hopes may be accorded a sincere friend desirous of embarrassing neither nation involved, and of serving, if it may, the common interests of humanity. The course outlined is offered in the hope that it may draw forth the views and elicit the suggestions of the British and German governments on a matter of capital interest to the whole world.

"Germany and Great Britain to agree:---

"First. That neither will sow any floating mines, whether upon the high seas or in territorial waters; that neither will plant on the high seas anchored mines except within cannon range of harbors for defensive purposes only; and that all mines shall bear the stamp of the government planting them, and be so constructed as to become harmless if separated from their moorings.

"Second. That neither will use submarines to attack merchant vessels of any nationality except to enforce the right of visit and search.

"Third. That each will require their respective merchant vessels not to use neutral flags for the purpose of disguise or ruse de guerre.

"Germany to agree:---

"That all importations of food or foodstuffs from the United States (and from such other neutral countries as may ask it) into Germany shall be consigned to agencies to be designated by the United States government; that these American agencies shall have entire charge and control, without interference on the part of the German government, of the receipt and distribution of such importations, and shall distribute them solely to retail dealers bearing licenses from the German government entitling them to receive and furnish such food and foodstuffs to non-combatants only; that any violation of the terms of the retailers' licenses shall work a forfeiture of their rights to receive such food and foodstuffs for this purpose; and that such food and foodstuffs will not be requisitioned by the German government for any purpose whatsoever or be diverted to the use of the armed forces of Germany.

"Great Britain to agree:---

"That food and foodstuffs will not be placed upon the absolute contraband list, and that shipments of such commodities will not be interfered with or detained by British authorities if consigned to agencies designated by the United States government in Germany for the receipt and distribution of such cargoes to licensed German retailers for distribution solely to the non-combatant population.

"In submitting this proposed basis of agreement this government does not wish to be understood as admitting or denying any belligerent or neutral right established by the principles of international law, but would consider the agreement, if acceptable to the interested Powers, a modus vivendi, based upon expediency rather than legal right, and as not binding upon the United States either in its present form or in a modified form until accepted by this government."



Philadelphia, September 7, 1793.

Sir:--We have received, through a channel which cannot be considered as authentic, the copy of a paper, styled "Additional Instructions to the Commanders of His Majesty's Ships of War and Privateers," &c., dated at St. James, June 8, 1793. If this paper be authentic, I have little doubt but that you will have taken measures to forward it to me. But as your communication of it may miscarry, and time in the meanwhile will be lost, it has been thought better that it should be supposed authentic and that on that supposition I should notice to you its very exceptional nature, and the necessity of obtaining explanations on the subject from the British government; desiring at the same time that you will consider this letter as provisionally written only, and as if never written, in the event that the paper which is the occasion of it be not genuine.

The first article of it (the British Order) permits all vessels laden wholly or in part with corn, flour, or meal, bound to any port in France to be stopped and sent into any British port, to be purchased by that government, or to be released only on the condition of security given. by the master that he will proceed to dispose of his cargo in the ports of some country in amity with His Majesty.

This article is so manifestly contrary to the law of nations that nothing more would seem necessary than to observe that it is so. Reason and usage have established that when two nations go to war, those who choose to live in peace retain their natural right to pursue their agriculture, manufactures, and other ordinary vocations, to carry the produce of their industry for exchange to all nations, belligerent or neutral, as usual, to go and come freely without injury or molestation, and, in short, that the war among others shall be for them as if it did not exist. One restriction on their natural rights has been submitted to by nations at peace; that is to say, that of not furnishing to either party implements merely of war for the annoyance of the other, nor anything whatever to a place blockaded by its enemy.

What these implements of war are has been so often agreed and is so well understood as to leave little question about them at this day. There does not exist, perhaps, a nation in our common hemisphere, which has not made a particular enumeration of them in some or all of their treaties, under the name of contraband. It suffices for the present occasion to say that corn, flour, and meal are not of the class of contraband, and, consequently, remain articles of free commerce. A culture which, like that of the soil, gives employment to such a proportion of mankind, could never be suspended by the whole earth or interrupted for them, whenever any two nations should think proper to go to war.

The state of war then existing between Great Britain and France furnishes no legitimate right either to interrupt the agriculture of the United States or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all nations, and consequently the assumption of it will be as lawful hereafter as now, in peace as in war. No ground, acknowledged by the common reason of mankind, authorizes this act now, and unacknowledged ground may be taken at any time and at all times.

We see then a practice begun to which no time, no circumstances, prescribe any limits, and which strikes at the root of our agriculture, that branch of industry which gives food, clothing, and comfort to the great mass of the inhabitants of these states. If any nation whatever has a right to shut up to our produce all the ports of the earth except her own and those of her friends she may shut up these also and so confine us within our own limits. No nation can subscribe to such pretensions; no nation can agree, at the mere will or interest of another, to have its peaceable industry suspended and its citizens reduced to idleness and want. The loss of our produce destined for foreign markets, or that loss which would result from an arbitrary restraint of our markets, is a tax too serious for us to acquiesce in. It is not enough for a nation to say we and our friends will buy your produce. We have a right to answer that it suits us better to sell to their enemies as well as their friends. Our ships do not go to France to return empty. They go to exchange the surplus of one produce which we can spare for surpluses of other kinds which they can spare and we want; which they furnish on better terms, and more to our mind, than Great Britain or her friends.

We have a right to judge for ourselves what market best suits us and they have none to forbid to us the enjoyment of the necessaries and comforts which we may obtain from any other independent country.

This act, too, tends directly to draw us from that state of peace in which we are wishing to remain. It is an essential character of neutrality to furnish no aids (not stipulated by treaty) to one party which we are not equally ready to furnish to the other. If we permit corn to be sent to Great Britain and her friends, we are equally bound to permit it to France. To restrain it would be a partiality which might lead to a war with France, and between restraining it ourselves and permitting her enemies to restrain it unrightfully is not difference. She would consider this as a mere pretext, of which she would not be the dupe; and on what honorable ground could we otherwise explain it? Thus we should see ourselves plunged by this unauthorized act of Great Britain into a war with which we meddle not, and which we wish to avoid if justice to all parties and from all parties will enable us to avoid it. In the case where we found ourselves obliged by treaty to withhold from the enemies of France the right of arming in our ports, we thought ourselves in justice bound to withhold the same right from France also, and we did it.

Were we to withhold from her (France) supplies of provisions, we should in like manner be bound to withhold them from her enemies also, and thus shut to ourselves all the ports of Europe where corn is in demand or make ourselves parties in the war. This is a dilemma which Great Britain has no right to force upon us, and for which no pretext can be found in any part of our conduct. She may, indeed, feel the desire of starving an enemy nation, but she can have no right of doing it at our loss nor of making us the instruments of it.

The President therefore desires that you will immediately enter into explanations on this subject with the British government. Lay before them in friendly and temperate terms all the demonstrations of the injury done us by this act, and endeavor to obtain a revocation of it and full indemnification to any citizens of these states who may have suffered by it in the meantime. Accompany your representations by every assurance of our earnest desire to live on terms of the best friendship and harmony with them and to found our expectations of justice on their part on a strict observance of it on ours.

It is with concern, however, I am obliged to observe that so marked has been the inattention of the British court to every application which has been made to them on any subject by this government (not a single answer I believe having ever been given to one of them, except in the act of exchanging a minister), that it may become unavoidable, in certain cases, where an answer of some sort is necessary, to consider their silence as an answer. Perhaps this is their intention. Still, however, desirous of furnishing no color of offense, we do not wish you to name to them any term for giving an answer. Urge one as much as you can without commitment, and on the first day of December be so good as to give us information of the state in which this matter is, that it may be received during the session of Congress....

Whether these explanations with the British government shall be verbal or in writing, is left to yourself. Verbal communications are very insecure; for it is only to deny them or to change their terms, in order to do away their effect at any time. Those in writing have as many and obvious advantages, and ought to be preferred, unless there be obstacles of which we are not apprized.

I have the honor to be, with great and sincere esteem, dear Sir, your most obedient servant.



I dissent from the views of the majority of this Committee, and approve of the Ship Purchase Bill now before Congress.

The emergency is such that the ordinary arguments against the government entering the field of private business do not apply.

The emergency is the re-establishment, or the maintenance, of our trade communication with neutral and belligerent European countries which are our chief markets and sources of supply.

I conceive that the chief task confronting us today is to uphold, as against all belligerents, the rights of our merchants to the peaceful pursuit of commerce of all sorts, uninterrupted excepting for contraband of war sent to belligerents. This is the principle for which this country has fought successfully at recent international conferences.

This principle is being increasingly violated by belligerents in the present war. I apprehend that vessels owned by the United States Government will have a standing that will compel respect by all belligerents. There can be no question of the good faith in which they were purchased, no matter what the source. It can be guaranteed that they carry no contraband. All excuse for interfering with the commerce they carry will be removed.

As a theory, government ownership of merchant vessels is wrong. As a measure to meet the present economic emergency, it is justified and right.

(Signed) E. J. CLAPP.
February 1, 1915.




I,......................................of......................................, an Associate Member of the Liverpool Cotton Association, do solemnly and sincerely declare that neither I nor my firm nor any partner in the same nor any branch house or other firm or firms in which I or any one of my partners may be directly or indirectly pecuniarily interested will trade or have dealings with any person or a member or representative of any firm or person domiciled or carrying on business in any state at present at war with His Britannic Majesty until such time as peace may have been declared, and I further undertake when trading with subjects of neutral countries to make all necessary enquiries in order to satisfy myself as to the ultimate destination of the goods and that none of them are intended for consumption in or for transit through any state at war with His Majesty.

Declared this..................day of......................................


Address of Witness......................................










Copper Cargo (tons)

Ascot British Italy Oct. 10 Oct. 26


Palermo Italian


Oct. 20 Nov. 2


Regina d'Italia



Oct. 15 Oct. 26





Oct. 24 Nov. 8


Kroonland American


Oct. 15 Nov. 8


San Giovanni Italian


Oct. 14 Oct. 26


Duca di Genoa



Oct. 17 Nov. 8





Oct. 24 Nov. 8





Oct. 21 Nov. 8


San Guglielmo



Oct. 21 Nov. 8


Tabor Norwegian


Oct. 26 Nov. 13


Taurus American


Nov. 1 Nov. 13


Perugia British


Nov. 1 Nov. 13


Norheim Norwegian


Oct. 17 Nov. 18




  21,403,200 lbs.


Ship Nationality Destination Sailed Seized Copper Cargo (tons)


Sweden Oct. 31 Nov. 18


Sigrum Norwegian


Nov. 8 Nov. 26


Ran Swedish


Nov. 13 Dec. 1


Antones Norwegian


Oct. 22 Nov. 14





Oct. 29 Nov. 19


Francisco British


Oct. 17 Nov. 2





Oct. 24, Nov. 10





Oct. 31 Nov. 15





Oct. 10 Oct. 25





Nov. 7 Nov. 26


New Sweden Swedish


Dec. 6 Dec. 28


Soerland Norwegian


Nov. 27 Dec. 28


Canton Swedish


Nov. 12 Dec. 1




  12,555,200 lbs.



Copper from United States Of America to Neutral Countries

"Whilst His Majesty's Government are at present, so far as they are able, preventing any copper from reaching their enemies, they have no desire to interfere in any way with the sales of the United States copper producers to purchasers in neutral countries which are willing to guarantee that the copper which they import is for the consumption of those neutral countries.

"If the United States producers would be willing to co-operate, His Majesty's Government will not interfere with their copper shipments to those neutral countries which have placed copper on their prohibition list, and whose prohibitions of export are found to be effective.

"Whilst His Majesty's Government cannot abandon in any way their right to search vessels, they will be quite willing to allow to proceed to its destination all copper which is to be sold only to named consumers, and not to merchants, dealers or forwarding agents, in such neutral countries as have placed copper and articles manufactured mainly of copper on their list of prohibited exports, provided that a copy of the contract of sale is sent to the director of the Trade Division at the Admiralty, and it shall contain a clause to the effect that neither the copper itself nor any of its products shall be exported. Such copper upon arriving at its destination shall be put into warehouse, so that it cannot afterwards be declared in transit. The bill of lading must show clearly the name of the actual consumer, or of a recognized London merchant, or the name of a banker who shall be approved by His Majesty's Government.

"It is agreed that the undersigned will not export copper to Sweden, Norway, Denmark or Italy, except in compliance with, and subject to, the conditions of Article 9 hereof, and that it (the undersigned company) will not export copper to other neutral countries except subject to permit of British Admiralty.

"Shipments of copper to Great Britain or her allies may be made without restriction.

"All sale contracts for neutral countries to be forwarded to the British Admiralty, either through its London representatives or through His Britannic Majesty's Consul at the part of New York.

"Shipments of copper against contracts entered into previous to the signing of this agreement and any existing f. o. b. contracts are exempt from its provisions.

"We will be prepared to conform to the different provisions set forth in the above regulations of the Admiralty as regards shipments of copper from the U. S. A. to neutral countries, and we assent to the terms of the letter of January 2, 1915, from Richard Webb, Director of Trade Division, to Messrs. C. S. Henry & Company, Ltd., a copy of which letter, marked Exhibit 'A', is attached hereto."

Blank Company ......................................



"The British Embassy have received since the issue of the Order in Council of March 11 numerous applications from shippers of American produce for information and advice on general lines as to the steps which ought to be taken by them to facilitate the quicker expedition and passage of consignments of goods to neutral designations for neutral consumption.

"The British Embassy can give no assurance as to the immunity from visit and search or detention of any particular shipments, but with regard to consignments of non-contraband articles as well as of articles of conditional contraband, they are authorized to state that in cases where adequate information is furnished by consignors to show that the goods shipped are neutral property and are to be used exclusively for consumption in neutral countries or by the Allies, this will be taken into consideration by the authorities charged with the execution of the Order in Council. This will also apply to shipments of certain descriptions of goods listed as absolute contraband. Such goods are, however, usually subjected to closer scrutiny and control, and in some cases to special arrangements.

"It would greatly facilitate and expedite the work of clearing vessels bound to neutral ports, which call at or are brought into British ports for examination of their papers, if shipping houses or their agents would give British consular officers a duplicate of the final manifest of the vessel immediately on its departure for Europe in order that, if possible, it may be transmitted to the British authorities in London in time for it to be received and considered before the vessel arrives.

"To further accelerate proceedings, manifests and bills of lading should disclose the exact nature of the goods and wherever it is possible the name and full business address of the ultimate consignee as well as the name and address of the consignor.

"Shippers would avoid the use of generic descriptions such as hardware, dry salteries, machinery, &c., which are capable of being employed to conceal the real identity of goods classed as contraband. An exact definition of the specific character of consignments will save delay in their examination. It will also facilitate their identification with the articles comprised in the export embargo-lists of the country to which the goods are consigned. For example, in the case of lubricating oils, it should always be stated whether the oil is vegetable or mineral. The precise nature of animal and vegetable fats and oils should also be indicated. The term 'lard,' alone, for instance, is not adequate without some closer definition, because the lists of prohibited exports of certain neutral countries differentiate between various preparations and compounds of this article.

"It should be clearly understood that the forwarding of goods to a neutral port is not proof that they are destined for neutral consumption. Consignors should always endeavor to procure and exhibit complete information as to the final destination of the goods. Shipments manifested 'to order' or 'in transit,' or with bills of lading addressed to a branch or agency of the consignors, or to 'commission agents,' 'banks' or 'forwarding houses' for account of an unnamed consignee, afford no evidence as to their ultimate destination. Wherever it is practicable, the full name and address of the ultimate consignee should figure in the documents relative to the goods concerned, and metals should, so far as possible, be addressed to the actual consumers and not to dealers.

"In connection with the establishment of proof of ultimate destination, it may be observed that if goods definitely addressed to a neutral consignee can be clearly identified as being comprised in the export embargo list of the country to which they are consigned, this will be taken into consideration as corroborative evidence of their destinations for neutral consumption. Precision in describing goods will accordingly accelerate comparison with the lists of prohibited exports of neutral countries, and in the case of shipments to Sweden it would further hasten proceedings if the corresponding number of articles in the British tariff were always given in addition to the description of the goods. Certificates of final destination issued by the official representatives of the country concerned will be accepted as collateral evidence that the goods are for neutral use.

"In all arrangements which may be made for shipments of goods under the supervision of British Consular authorities, it should be clearly understood that the right of visit and search or detention is not waived, but that the operations of verification which may be called for by the proximity of the countries of destination to Germany is simplified and expedited if consular supervision has taken place and if full details are furnished.

"With regard to shipments to the Netherlands, wheat and wheat flour and meal destined for consumption in that country should be consigned to the Netherlands government, and all other articles on the British contraband lists, as well as cocoa, coffee and tobacco, destined for consumption in that country, should be consigned to the Netherlands Overseas Trust.

"Information as to the description of goods included in the British lists of absolute and conditional contraband will be furnished on application to any British Consul.

"The foregoing recommendations are offered for the assistance of shippers, and compliance with them will materially hasten the expedition and passage of cargoes in cases where there is no further information at the disposal of the authorities of a nature to throw doubt on the neutral character of the goods or their neutral destination."



The following note has been received from the British Embassy at this capital relative to the movement of American-owned goods now in Germany to this country:

"The British Embassy are authorized to state that in cases where a merchant vessel sails from a port other than a German port carrying goods of enemy origin for which American importers claim to have made payment prior to March 1, 1915, proofs that such goods were paid for before March 1 may be submitted for examination to the Embassy. If such proofs are presented at a sufficiently early stage to enable the report thereon to be communicated in time to the British authorities, the results of the investigation will be taken into account and due weight attached to them in deciding whether the goods concerned should be discharged under the provisions of Article IV of the Order in Council of March 11." On March 30, 1915, the government of the United States replied to the British Orders in Council assuming that the British government will not deny the rule that innocent shipments may be freely transported to and from the United States through neutral countries to belligerent territory without being subject to the penalties of contraband traffic or breach of blockade, much less to detention, requisition or confiscation, and that this would of course include all outward-bound traffic from the neutral country and all inward-bound traffic to the neutral country except contraband in transit to the enemy.

While the government of the United States cannot in any way lend its aid in an official and formal manner to procuring American-owned goods now in Germany for the importers of the United States which would in the slightest degree amount to a recognition of the position of Great Britain in respect to non-contraband goods, especially from neutral ports, the Office of the Foreign Trade Advisers of the Department will aid informally American importers who desire to present proof of ownership of American goods in Germany for which American importers claim to have made payment prior to March 1, 1915.

You are therefore advised that if you desire to submit proofs of your ownership of goods, paid for before March 1, for examination by the British Embassy, you may forward such evidence as you have to the Foreign Trade Advisers of the Department of State. In doing so, it is suggested that you incorporate with the evidence of ownership and payment information in the following order:

1. A history of the case, showing dates of payment, nature of the goods bought, location of goods at the present, date when they reached their present location, name of steamer on which it is desired to ship such goods, date of sailing of such steamer and all further information pertaining to origin, payment, and shipment of goods in your possession.

2. Original bank drafts or evidence of transfer of money from this country to belligerent country, verified by bank officials if possible.

3. (Paragraph cancelled.)

4. Invoices of goods and such other evidence as will prove the identity of the goods with those actually paid for.

5. Such other and further information in regard to the shipment of goods and payment therefor as will be pertinent and corroborative.

This evidence will be collated and presented to the British Embassy for communication to the British authorities. In presenting this evidence the Foreign Trade Advisers will act unofficially as your representatives and with the understanding that in so doing the Department does not recognize the position of the British government under Article IV of the Order in Council of March 11 or any other article contained in the Orders in Council, but the unofficial aid of the Foreign Trade Advisers is given merely to facilitate the shipments of American-owned goods of belligerent origin.

Very truly yours,

Foreign Trade Advisers.

Table of Contents