Norwich bulletin., 1915-11-25

within the province of the state de-
 The position of the secretary is that diplomatic representatives not only are immune from criminal prosecution. but that nothing that may be done by the ment of other cases binds +h6 state department,to ask for the withdrawal of any diplomatic ohicer. In the cases also of consul-generals and others ac- credited agents of foreign govern ments, even though these do not en- joy diplomatic immunity from pros ecution, the attitude of the state de- partments is that there are important questions--o policies involved. which
 guide it in deciding whether recal!
 should be asked for.
 Tn the case of Captain Boy-Ed, Sec retary Lansing's view is that so far as he Is able to judge from the in l formation in hfM possession, the Ger, man naval attache did not violate any law in supplying funds to obtain coal and provisions for battleships at sea. since this fin belief Is. not a cofnmer- cial offense. The secretary declined. however, to indicate what might be the latitude of the. department if 1t should
 be proved that CaptaiR Boy-Ed had
 knowledge of or directed the alleged | Justification of manifests and clearance
 papers by agents of the Hamburg
 American line.
 Legal proof, however. 1t was pointed ! out at the state department. is not | necessary in any event in deciding whether the personal acceptability of
 a foreign diplomatic officer Is ter | minated Action. it. was stated, could l be just as we'll based on presumptior- ] Questions of policy: must De gwen TOT consideration. however. officials said.
 because in endeavoring to supply Ger | man warships at sea Captain Boy-Ed was acting in compliance with the ex- pressed views of his government to l the United States. At the lime the 1Heged offensesl occurred no penalty
 had been. provided in municipal law against the provisioning of belliserent | warships and bnly in the closing hours of the last session of congress was such measure enacted. Previously the, question was moot point between the governments of the tinted States and Germany. The lat Eter served notice through Count Bern
 storff in a note dated December 16, | 1914:
 l ~The position taken by the govern tuent Of the United States as to the 1; delivery of coal and other necessarier ! to warships of the oelligerent states constituting a violation of neutrality 1 is in the opinion of the Imperial Ger man government unteuable In inter rational law. ss Only when con- trabard- trade would turn the ports into bases of German military opera lions would the unilateral stoppage of the trade of those vessels become a duty Such. perhaps. would be the case if the Germans kept coal depots in the port or if the vessels called at the uort in regular voyages on the
 way to German naval forces, but l. stands to reason that one merchant
 vessel occasionally sailing with coal or supplies for German warships does
 not tuT1, a neutral port into alderman
 point of support contrary to neutral ity.
 'In answer to this. secretary Lansing denied that any merchant vessels had
 been refused clearance, as complained 1 of by the German ambassador, al- though certain detentions had been made to investigate the bona .fidc | character of destinations and ,tnten- | tions of the vessels. He added that l"essential ideas of neutrality Decom- ing a base for naval operations by q
 belligerent is in the opinion of this
 government repeated departure from
 such territory of merchant vessels la
 den with fuel or supplies for bellig- Il erent warships at sea"
 | In commenting today on the position l of the United States Secretary lansing | said he had no knowledge that the yes-
 seIs concerned in the New Ycrk eases
 had repeatedly left American ports Co | supply belligerent cruisers or com merce raiders.