New-York tribune., 1918-05-02
Rritish Note Explains
Breakdown of Modus
Vivendi
.pecites s Negotiations
e..,ement Shows Holland
Wa. Advised That Craft
Would Be Seiezd

roNDoN. May 1.-The note of the
nl..;sh government in reply to the last
n.,eh note concerning the requisition-
:, Of Dutch shipping gives detailed
.rrvey Of the abortive negotiations for
= smicable arrangement for the use of
no,ch shipping. 1t shows that such an
.r-sement was reached December "a
.s;,h Dutch delegates sent to London
for this purpose. At the end of jan
a.rv however, no reply had been re-
eeived.
Meanwhile, an arrangement was
cached January 20 (the so-called mo-
anx yiyendi), which provided that a
..rtain number of Dutch vessels could
~ used at once outside the submarine
,one. of which ships up to 10000 tons
,;cbt be employed for Belgian relief.
4, the departure of vessel for Hol-
,.nd in the service of the Commission
sor Relief in Belgium corresponding
vessel was to leave Holland for the
United States
Puts Blame on Germany
Tho extent to which the modus
v;yendi was carried out, says the note,
vac so slight as to render it practi-
ssllv abortive, and it was German op-
nos;tion that caused the modus vivendi
breakdown, Germany refusing to allow
any Dutch ships to leave Holland as
arranged
The reply remarks that it would
seem as ii the terms of the, Dutch note
of March 80 were intended to produce
the impression that when the asso-
eiated governments at length proceeded
10 reauistion Dutch tonnage lying in
tbeir ports they took a step entirely
unexpected by the Netherlands govern
ment.
aAs q fact, explicit intimations that
rres must be taken were conveyed to
the Dutch government March and
March 49," says the note. Moreover,
IS early as March / the Netherlands
delegate who remained in London was
informed that it looked as if it would
relieve the situation for both sides if
the tonnage were requisitioned-
Neutrality Not Involved
1.-THE Dutch note implies that these
new conditions were necessary from the
point Of view of neutrality, but this
view is not based on international law,
and is merely a rule which the Neither
lands government made for themselves,
ss the Dutch Foreign Minister himself
stated In speech on March 19 that re-
lection Of the British offer made the
requisitioning of the tonnage inevitable
unless state of things was to continue
vhleh it was the very object of the
Central Powers to achieve-namely, the
immobllization of the Dutch shipping"
The note then recalls the very lib
erai conditions with which the associ-
ated governments would comply in
using requisltioned ships. 1t then pro-
feeos TO refute the assertion of the
Dutch note that the negotiations for
an economic agreement for the import
INTO Holland of large quantities of food
and other necessaries had been an
ruptly terminated by the action of the
associated governments. 1t declares
mere Is no obstacle to a continuation
q the negotiations at any date, and
mat If the negotiations proceed no
lurfher and no final arrangement is
reached the responsibility will not rest
Win the associated governments.
The note concludes with an ex-
PRESTON of the hope that the explana-
lions given will remove from the mind
q the Netherlands government and
sae Dutch people any misconceptions
regarding the proceedings of the asso-
elated governments, and that it will be
Ieaized that the latter have done
everything in their power to render
me action they were compelled to take.
and which, in their opinion, is fully
33;as.lhed 3;.s, under international law, as
MAa WYE injurious as possible to the
Netherlands interests.