man Federal Council on the 25th of January, under article 45 of which all grain and flour imported into Germany after the 31st of January was declared deliverable only to certain organizations under direct government control or to municipal authorities. The vessel was bound for Hamburg, one of the free cities of the German Empire, the government of which is vested in the municipality. This was one of the reasons actuating His Majesty's Government in deciding to bring the cargo of the Wilhelmina before the prize court.

3. Information has only now reached them that by a subsequent decree, dated the 6th of February, the above provision in article 45 of the previous decree was repealed, it would appear, for the express purpose of rendering difficult the anticipated proceedings against the Wilhelmina. The repeal was not known to His Majesty's Government at the time of detention of the cargo, or, indeed, until now.

4. How far the ostensible exception of imported supplies from the general Government monopoly of all grain and flour set up by the German Government may affect the question of the contraband nature of the shipment seized is a matter which will most suitably be investigated by the prize court.

5. It is, however, necessary to state that the German decree is not the only ground on which the submission of the cargo of the Wilhelmina to a prize court is justified. The German Government have in public announcements claimed to treat practically every town or port on the English east coast as a fortified place and base of operations. On the strength of this contention they have subjected to bombardment the open towns of Yarmouth, Scarborough, and Whitby, among others. On the same ground a number of neutral vessels sailing for English ports on the east coast with cargoes of goods on the German list of conditional contraband have been seized by German cruisers and brought before the German prize court. Again, the Dutch vessel Maria, having sailed from California with a cargo of grain consigned to Dublin and Belfast, was sunk in September last by the German cruiser Karlsruhe. This could only have been justified if, among other things, the cargo could have been proved to be destined for the British Government or armed forces, and if a presumption to this effect had been established owing to Dublin or Belfast being considered a fortified place or a base for the armed forces.

6. The German Government can not have it both ways. If they consider themselves justified in destroying by bombardment the lives and property of peaceful civil inhabitants of English open towns and watering places and in seizing and sinking ships and cargoes of conditional contraband on the way thither on the ground that they were consigned to a fortified place or base, "a fortiori," His Majesty's Government must be at liberty to treat Hamburg, which is in part protected by fortifications at the mouth of the Elbe, as a fortified town and a base of operations and supply for the purposes of article 34 of the declaration of London. If the owners of the cargo of the Wilhelmina desire to question the validity in international law of the action taken by order of His Majesty's Government, they will have every opportunity of establishing their case in due course before the prize court, and His Majesty's Government would, in this connection, recall the attention of the United States Government to the considerations put forward in Sir Edward Grey's note to Mr. Page of the

10th instant as to the propriety of awaiting the result of prize-court proceedings before diplomatic action is initiated. It will be remembered that they have from the outset given a definite assurance that the owners of the Wilhelmina, as well as the owners of her cargo, if found not to be contraband, would be equitably indemnified.

7. There is one further observation to which His Majesty's Government think it right and appropriate in the present connection to give expression. They have not so far declared foodstuffs to be absolute contraband. They have not interfered with any neutral vessels on account of their carrying foodstuffs, except on the basis of such foodstuffs being liable to capture if destined for the enemy forces or Governments. In so acting they have been guided by the general principle, of late universally upheld by civilized nations and observed in practice, that the civil populations of countries at war are not to be exposed to the treatment rightly reserved for combatants. This distinction has to all intents and purposes been swept away by the novel doctrines proclaimed and acted upon by the German Government.

8. It is unnecessary here to dwell upon the treatment that has been meted out to the civil population of Belgium and those parts of France which are in German occupation. When Germany, long before any mines had been laid by British authorities, proceeded to sow mines upon the high seas, and by this means sunk a considerable number not only of British but also of neutral merchantmen, with their unoffending crews, it was, so His Majesty's Government held, open to them to take retaliatory measures, even if such measures were of a kind to involve pressure of the civil population-not, indeed, of neutral States but of their enemies. They refrained from doing so.

9. When subsequently English towns and defenseless British subjects, including women and children, were deliberately and systematically fired upon and killed by ships flying the flag of the Imperial German Navy, when quiet country towns and villages void of defenses and possessing no military or naval importance were bombarded by German airships, His Majesty's Government still abstained from drawing the logical consequences from this form of attack on defenseless citizens. Further steps in the same direction are now announced, and, in fact, have already been taken by Germany. British merchant vessels have been torpedoed at sight, without any attempt being made to give warning to the crew or any opportunity being given to save their lives; a torpedo has been fired against a British hospital ship in daylight, and similar treatment is threatened to all British merchant vessels in future, as well as to any neutral ships that may happen to be found in the neighborhood of the British Isles.

10. Faced with this situation, His Majesty's Government consider it would be altogether unreasonable that Great Britain and her allies should be expected to remain indefinitely bound, to their grave detriment, by rules and principles of which they recognize the justice if impartially observed as between belligerents, but which are at the present moment openly set at defiance by their enemy.

11. If therefore His Majesty's Government should hereafter feel constrained to declare foodstuffs absolute contraband or to take other measures for interfering with German trade by way of reprisals, they confidently expect that such action will not be challenged on the part

of neutral States by appeals to laws and usages of war whose validity rests on their forming an integral part of that system of international doctrine which as a whole their enemy frankly boasts the liberty and intention to disregard, so long as such neutral States can not compel the German Government to abandon methods of warfare which have not in recent history been regarded as having the sanction of either law or humanity. (Dip. Corr. 82-83.)

A month and a half later, April 8, Britain submitted the following memorandum:

British memorandum, April 8, 1915, in reference to the Wilhelmina. (The prime minister to the American ambassador.)

His Majesty's Government share the desire of the United States Government for an immediate settlement of the case of the Wilhelmina. This American ship, laden with foodstuffs, left New York for Hamburg on January 22. She called at Falmouth of her own accord on February 9, and her cargo was detained as prize on February 11. The writ instituting prize-court proceedings was issued on February 27, and claimed that the cargo should be condemned as contraband of war. No proceedings were taken or even threatened against the ship herself, and in the ordinary course the cargo would have been unloaded when seized, so that the ship would be free to leave. The owners of the cargo, however, have throughout objected to the discharge of her cargo, and it is because of this objection that the ship is still at Falmouth with the cargo on board.

His Majesty's Government have formally undertaken that, even should the condemnation of the cargo as contraband be secured in the prize court, they would none the less compensate the owners for any loss sustained in consequence of the ship having been stopped and proceedings taken against the cargo.

It was understood at the time that the proceedings in the prize court would be in the nature of a test case, the decision in which would govern the treatment of any subsequent shipments of food supplies to Germany in similar circumstances. Since then the situation has, however, materially changed by the issue of the order in council of March 11, 1915, and the measures taken thereunder which prevent further supplies being sent from America to Germany, whether contraband or not.

In these circumstances there is no longer an object in continuing the judicial proceedings in the case of the Wilhelmina, for it can no longer serve as a test case, and it is really agreed that the owners of the cargo, even if proved to have no claim, are to be treated as if their claim was good. Nothing therefore remains but to settle the claim on proper and just conditions, and this would, in the opinion. of His Majesty's Government, be secured most expeditiously and with the least inconvenience to all parties by an agreement between the Crown and the claimants for the disposal of the whole matter. His Majesty's Government accordingly propose that such an agreement be arrived at on the following terms: "His Majesty's Government having undertaken to compensate the claimants by paying for the cargo seized on the basis of the loss of the profit the claimants would have made if the ship had proceeded in due course to Ham

burg, and by indemnifying them for the delay caused to the ship so far as this delay has been due to the action of the British authorities, all proceedings in the prize court shall be stayed on the understanding that His Majesty's Government buy the cargo from the claimants on the above terms. The cargo shall be discharged and delivered to the proper office of the Crown forthwith. The sum to be paid shall be assessed by a single American and His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, who shall certify the total amount after making such inquiries as he may think fit, but without formal hearing or arbitration." His Majesty's Government would be grateful if the United States ambassador would inform the claimants of the above proposal at his early convenience and obtain their acceptance.

In the meantime the United States undertook to protect the use of the American flag from belligerent vessels.

On the 10th of February, 1915, the following note was addressed to Great Britain:

American memorandum, February 10, 1915, concerning the use of the American flag by British vessels. (See No. 24.)

(The Secretary of State to the American ambassador at London.)

The department has been advised of the declaration of the German Admiralty on February 4, indicating that the British Government had on January 31 explicitly authorized the use of neutral flags on British merchant vessels, presumably for the purpose of avoiding recognition by German naval forces. The department's attention has also been directed to reports in the press that the captain of the Lusitania, acting upon orders or information received from the British authorities, raised the American flag as his vessel approached the British coasts, in order to escape anticipated attacks by German submarines. To-day's press reports also contain an alleged official statement of the foreign office defending the use of the flag of a neutral country by a belligerent vessel in order to escape capture or attack by an enemy.

Assuming that the foregoing reports are true, the Government of the United States, reserving for future consideration the legality and propriety of the deceptive use of the flag of a neutral power in any case for the purpose of avoiding capture, desires very respectfully to point out to His Britannic Majesty's Government the serious consequences which may result to American vessels and American citizens if this practice is continued.

The occasional use of the flag of a neutral or an enemy under the stress of immediate pursuit and to deceive an approaching enemy, which appears by the press reports to be represented as the precedent and justification used to support this action, seems to this Government a very different thing from an explicit sanction by a belligerent Government for its merchant ships generally to fly the flag of a neutral power within certain portions of the high seas which are presumed to be frequented with hostile warships. The formal declaration of such a policy of general misuse of a neutral's flag jeopardizes the vessels of the neutral visiting those waters in a peculiar degree by raising the presumption that they are of belligerent nationality regardless of the flag which they may carry.

In view of the announced purpose of the German Admiralty to engage in active naval operations in certain delimited sea areas adjacent to the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland, the Government of the United States would view with anxious solicitude any general use of the flag of the United States by British. vessels traversing those waters. A policy such as the one which His Majesty's Government is said to intend to adopt would, if the declaration of the German Admiralty is put in force, it seems clear, afford no protection to British vessels, while it would be a serious and constant menace to the lives and vessels of American citizens.

The Government of the United States therefore trusts that His Majesty's Government will do all in their power to restrain vessels of British nationality from the deceptive use of the flag of the United States in the sea area defined in the German declaration, since such practice would greatly endanger the vessels of a friendly power navigating those waters and would even seem to impose upon the Government of Great Britain a measure of responsibility for the loss of American lives and vessels in case of an attack by a German naval force.

Please present a note to Sir Edward Grey in the sense of the foregoing and impress him with the grave concern which this Government feels in the circumstances in regard to the safety of American vessels and lives in the war zone declared by the German Admiralty.

You may add that this Government is making earnest representations to the German Government in regard to the danger to American vessels and citizens if the declaration of the German Admiralty is put into effect.

BRYAN.

On the 19th, or just nine days later, Britain sent the following reply:

British memorandum, February 19, 1915, concerning the use of the American flag by British vessels. (See No. 19.)

(The secretary of state for foreign affairs to the American ambassador.) The memorandum communicated on the 11th of February calls attention in courteous and friendly terms to the action of the captain of the British S. S. Lusitania in raising the flag of the United States of America when approaching British waters and says that the Government of the United States feel a certain anxiety in considering the possibility of any general use of the flag of the United States by British vessels traversing those waters, since the effect of such a policy might be to bring about a menace to the lives and vessels of United States citizens.

It was understood that the German Government had announced their intention of sinking British merchant vessels at sight by torpedoes without giving any opportunity of making any provision for saving the lives of noncombatant crews and passengers. It was in consequence of this threat that the Lusitania raised the United States flag on her inward voyage and on her subsequent outward voyage. A request was made by the United States passengers who were embarking on board her that the United States flag should be hoisted, presumably to insure their safety. Meanwhile the mem