Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-10-29

| thorization, for it would amount to an
unneutral treatment of the belligerents
and constitute breach Of the gener-
ally accepted rules of neutrality to Ger
many's detriment."
Reply of Secretary of State.
! The Secretary of State in his reply
held that:
| tory becoming the base for naval oper-
ations by belligerent is, in the opin-
ion of this government. repeated de-
parture from such territory of mer-
| chant vessels laden with fuel or other
supplies for belligerent warships at
sea; in order to ascertain the vessels
which are thus operating the govern
ment has been obliged to investigate
| certain cases in order that it might de-
| termine whether there have been or are
, bout to be repetition of such acts, but
| in all respects equality of treatment
/ has been observed toward all merchant
| vessels suspected of carrying supplies
| to belligerent vessels.
The correspondence shows that the
| state Department received also a COM
plant from the British ambassador
stating that the systematic way in
which neutral ships have left Ameri-
can ports in order to supply German
cruisers, and have been allowed to
operate freely in the ports of the
| United States. in spite of the warnings
which have been given in the matter
causes grave anxiety to his majestys
government.
MIR. Lansing replied that so far as he
was advised:
Every suspicious case of vessels
leaving American ports to supply Ger
man cruisers which has been brought
with any basis of fact to support some
such statement has been fairly inves-
igated. The government of the
United States, therefore. feels obliged
intimating that it's vigilance in the
maintenance of it's neutral duties I'M
der international law has been re-
laXed.''
Specific Case Mentioned.
On another occasion the German am
bassador in complaining to the State
Department that the tug F. b. Dali
zell put to sea from New York to carry
provisions to the British cruiser Essex,
declared that the tug came out under
the searchlights of the L. S. S.
Frorida." Mr.. Lansing answered this
with the statement that the govern
ment of the United States had investi-
gated of the matter thoroughly and was
not able to find sufficinet evidence to
show that the tug did supply Brit
ish warships. He asked for further
evidence on which to renew the inves-
tigation. but this, it appears, was not
supplied.
In this connection Sir Cecil SPRING
Rice, the British amba ssador. gave the
state Department extract from a
letter written by the admiral in COM
mand of the British ships along the
American coast saying except on one
n nj o la cI,
formed the basis of the complaint re-
ferred to in your telegram. l am salts
fed that no attempt has been made to
order anything from the United States
territory
series of communications passed
between the British embassy and the
state Department on defensive arma-
ment of merchantmen and the right of
beiligerent merchant ships to leave neu-
trail ports prepared to arm at sea The
British embassy stated that with ref
erence to the fitting out on American
territory of vessels intended for war
like purposes, Great Britain would hold
the United States government RESPONSE
Bile for any damages to British trade or
shipping, or injury to British interests
generally which may be caused by such
vessels having been equipped at, or de-
parting from, United States ports"
The ruling of the State Department
that 1t was permissible for merchant
Ships to arm for defensive purposes
drew forth a note from the British en-
bassy on instructions from the foreign
Office. giving the fullest assurances
that British merchant vessels will never
be used for purposes of attack, that
they are merely traders armed only for
defense. that they will never fire unless
first fred upon and that they will
never, under any circumstances, attack
any vessel.
Not Violation of Neutrality.
The German government in a mem D.
randum transmitted by Ambassador
Gerard took exception to the view that
merchant vessels were permitted to de-
fend themselves against a war YES
sci, and argued that it was question
whether or not armed merchant ships
should be admitted into neutral ports
at ALL the extent of armament be-
ing held as affording no guaranty that
ships armed for defensive purposes
purposes under certain circumstances.
Mr.. Lansing's answer was that the
United States held that to permit YES
sells of small armament to enjoy the
hospitality of American ports mer-
chant vessels was not a violation of
neutrality.
Nevertheless" the American reply
added, the government of the United
States is not unmindful of the fact that
the circumstances of a particular case
may be such as to cause embarrass-
ment and possible controversy as to
the character of an armed private yes
sci visiting its ports Recognizing,
therefore, the desira bility of avoiding
a ground of complaint this govern
ment, soon case arose, while
frankly admitting the right of mer-
chant vessel to carry a defensive arma-
ment, expressed its disapprobation of
practice which compelled it to pass
upon a vessels intended use, which
opinion, if proven subsequently to be
constitute
for charge of unneutral conduct.
las a result of these representations
no merchant vessels with armament have
visited the ports of the United States