Evening star., 1940-01-19
Mail Seizures

Mail seizures
British rejection of the American
protest against illegal seizures of
mail in transit between American
and neutral ports will not tend
to strengthen American sympathy
for Britain, and, in fact, it contains
the germs OF a controversy such as
ragged between the American Govern
ment and Great Britain and France
between October, 1915, and April,
1917.
This is particularly regrettable be-
cause the British government ap-
parently has failed to appreciate the
concession made to it by the modera-
ton Of the American protest of
December %. The temperate attitude
OF the American Government is ap-
parent by comparison with the
strong phrases used by Secretary of
State Lansing in identic notes sent
to the British and French govern
ments on May "a. 1915.
The mail controversy is an Of
spring of the broader dispute over
the British right to take neutral
ships, including American, into
British jurisdiction for purposes of
contraband control. Insofar as the
use of the navicert system has made
1t unnecessary to divert American
vessels en- route to neutral European
ports, American ships are relieved of
this difficulty, but large quantity
OF mail originating in or destined
for the United States is carried in
British vessels or in Swedish, Dutch,
Norwegian or other neutral ships
which submit to examination at
British control points or are taken
to those places after visit by British
men-of-war on the high seas.
The presence Of American mails
within British jurisdiction, on either
British or neutral ships permits
British authorities to remove them
and examine them, piece by piece,
Tor contraband, which, it is generally
agreed, covers all forms of valuables
negotiable instruments, money,
gems, as well as merchandise. But
the examination Of each individual
piece OF letter mail, as is British
practice, is fragrant violation not
only of the eleventh Hague Con-
vention of 1907, which establishes
the inviolability of such postal mat
ter, but the property right of Amer
leans as well.
Such exhausting scrutiny OF cor
respondence between Americans and
persons in neutral countries makes
possible a number of aggravations,
not the least of which is the like
lihood-as happened during the last
war-of unreasonable delays, loss or
destruction of correspondence, and
revelation to British official sources
of the private commercial affairs of
Americans.
Mr.. Lloyd George revealed, un-
Willingly perhaps, in the House of
Commons on August 8, 1915, that
information from private letters was
turned over to British government
departments for whatever use they
might make of it, explaining later
that American commercial secrets
were safe inBritish hands. Conceding
British integrity, if the practice is
still followed, it is not beyond the
realm Of possibility for American
commercial secrets to get into i'm
proper hands during wartime when
it may not be possible to take all
the precautions necessary to safe
guard those secrets.
The difficulties between the Amer
ican and British governments over
mail are not issues Of principle. The
inviolability of letter mail is ad-
mitted by all parties, but the issues
arise over how far Britain may
encroach upon neutral rights in pur-
suing her blockade of Germany. In
this dispute the American Govern
ment stands exactly where it stood
in 1915-16-demanding full belliger-
ent respect for the right Of neutrals
to have their letter mail delivered
as expeditiously as possible, free
from invasion by British censorship.