Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

File No. 763.72112/363a

The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Germany

(Gerard)

[Telegram]

1

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, November 8, 1914, 1 p. m.

581. There is considerable doubt in certain quarters in this country as to the attitude of the German Government towards the shipments of cotton in neutral bottoms to the ports of the belligerents opposed to Germany. So far as advised, cotton has not been placed on the contraband lists of any of the belligerents, and Great Britain has definitely declared that it is not proposed to place cotton on British contraband lists, and that it will not be seized. Apprehension in this country would be greatly relieved, and the free movement of cotton encouraged, if Germany and Austria could find it possible to make a public declaration that cargoes of cotton in neutral vessels will not be molested or detained.

Please bring the foregoing to the attention of the German Government and request as prompt a reply as possible.

LANSING

File No. 763.72112/380

The Ambassador in Germany (Gerard) to the Secretary of State

[Telegram]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

These

Berlin, November 11, 1914. [Received November 16, 8 a. m.] 821. Your 514, October 28. Foreign Office informs me that under No. 27 of the German prize ordinance [of September 30, 1909], cotton and cotton yarn shall not be declared contraband. goods cannot, therefore [as a matter of course], be taken from neutral vessels. The German Government will abide by this attitude as long as the enemy powers do not treat cotton and cotton yarn differently and the neutral powers do not acquiesce in such treatment. GERARD

File No. 763.72112/1316

A. Boden to the Secretary of State

Washington, November 30, 1914. DEAR SIR: Having come to the United States in order to facilitate the export of the abundant cotton crop through the Netherlands, a neutral country, mainly to the port of Rotterdam, and having not only succeeded by getting the facility of the bigger New York banking institutions, such as the Guaranty Trust Company, New York City Bank, National Park Bank, Knauth Nachodt & Kuhne,

'The same, numbered 258, to the Ambassador in Austria-Hungary.

for partly financing same, and also interested our banks, our shipowners to put steamers at my disposal, I received a cable last night, by which a shipowner, as well as our Dutch insurance companies, now demand the same assurances and guarantees in regard to letting Dutch bottoms, loaded with cotton, pass free and unmolested while carrying cotton cargoes from the Gulf, as well as Atlantic ports, to Rotterdam. They ask this as a matter of precaution because it has occurred that, where England ordered a ship out of her ports with a free permission to proceed to Amsterdam, the French authorities ordered her to a French port where goods were discharged. It is not the question whether contraband or not contraband, but the danger that a ship being held up for indefinite time pending investigation, causing loss to the shipowner and loss of interest to the banker that has advanced the money, that it should be easy for an article like cotton, which, by no country has been declared as contraband, to give the assurances asked.

American bottoms. These being scarce and quite insufficient tonnage, therefore very high in price, makes it necessary to ship by neutral bottoms. In regard to price, the actual rate for American bottoms from Galveston to Bremen is paid with 3 cents per pound; whereas, I have in charter a Dutch boat at 114 cents from Galveston to Rotterdam, to which must be added cost of transportation Rotterdam-Bremen, which is 50 cents per [hundred] pound. Therefore, total of 14 cents per pound, which gives a saving of 14 cents between neutral and American bottoms.

War Risk Insurance: I am told the American Government charges 5 per cent premium, whereas our Dutch companies charge 22 per cent, which, again, is a saving of 22 per cent.

'I, therefore, consider it to the benefit of the United States Government, in order that the cotton is shipped unmolested at these reduced rates by which partly the farmer and also partly the importer will be benefited, making his buying capacity so much greater, that the Department of State endeavor to obtain from the French Republic an equal assurance and guarantee as received from the United Kingdom in regard to free, unmolested transportation of cotton, so I may convey to our shipowners, bankers, insurance companies a likewise confirmation such as I had the pleasure to receive from you, which will greatly tend to increase cotton shipments to Rotterdam.

Yours respectfully,

A. BODEN

The Counselor for the Department of State to the French Ambassador (Jusserand)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 1, 1914. MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: The positive declaration made by the British Government on the 26th ultimo that they would not seize shipments of cotton as contraband, has greatly relieved the tension. which has prevailed among American planters and shippers, due to a feeling of apprehension and uncertainty as to the policy of

Great Britain. There is, however, remaining considerable embarrassment among cotton shippers, who claim that while the British authorities do not interfere with shipments of cotton, the French authorities cause undue detentions of vessels loaded with this commodity and destined for belligerent countries in Europe, interrupting the course of their trade and causing them great expense. It would, therefore, be a great satisfaction if you could obtain from your Government as clear a statement of the immunity of this product from seizure as the British Government has been good enough to make in regard to it.

I know that you will appreciate the desire of allaying the apprehension which prevails on this point in regard to an article which this country wishes to export to Europe, and which seems to possess no qualities making it contraband. However groundless such apprehension may be, it is well to quiet it by assurances which can leave no doubt of the intention of your Government.

I am [etc.]

ROBERT LANSING

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

File No. 763.72112/474

The French Ambassador (Jusserand) to the Secretary of State

FRENCH EMBASSY,

Washington, December 13, 1914.
[Received December 14.]

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Referring to the question of cotton concerning which you recently telephoned to me, I beg to inform you that my Government cabled me that they "willingly give the same assurances as the British Government."

I have asked whether this implied the same verifying before departure of the nature of the goods which the papers state is taking place with the assistance of the British consuls. As soon as an answer reaches me, I shall at once convey it to you.

Believe me [etc.]

File No. 763.72112/568

JUSSERAND

The Ambassador in Austria-Hungary (Penfield) to the Secretary

of State

[Telegram]

AMERICAN EMBASSY, Vienna, December 16, 1914. [Received December 17, 10 p. m.]

351. Your 258, November 8,1 Austro-Hungarian Government state that in navy regulations published May 2, 1913, raw cotton and cotton yarn are specified as non-contraband and therefore free from seizure. Austro-Hungarian Government will adhere to this rule conditional on reciprocity enemy states.

1 See footnote, ante, p. 291.

PENFIELD

SHIPMENTS OF ILLUMINATING OIL

[For other correspondence, see the sections on "Interference by belligerent governments with neutral ships and cargoes and on "The transfer of merchant ships from belligerent flags to the American flag."]

File No. 763.72112/140

The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (by William H. Libby) to the Secretary of State

New York, September 18, 1914. SIR: On behalf of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey I have the honor to submit the following:

So far as we are aware, petroleum and its products were not specifically referred to in the London declaration, nor have they been specifically referred to in the contraband declarations of the belligerents.

In the conditional contraband schedules of said London declaration, and of said belligerent declarations, appears the following clause: "Fuel-Lubricants."

It is of great concern to the American petroleum industry to ascertain just what petroleum products could be or should be included under this fuel classification.

We especially contend that the ordinary illuminating oil of commerce, consigned to industrial concerns the world over for daily retail distribution, is not contraband. The mere fact that it is (naturally) susceptible of ignition should not outweigh the fact that utilization as fuel is not, and never has been, its natural and normal mission.

Although it will burn and create heat, its use as "fuel" for any warlike purpose would be abnormal and unnatural. It has, in fact, never been known or designated as fuel in the commercial circles of the world; and its normal use in lamps and in stoves for domestic heating and cooking should not be interdicted via belligerent proclamation.

The export commerce of petroleum, and its products, is sustaining many penalties traceable to the war, and would continue to be seriously restricted, even with illuminating oil immune from contraband classification.

The annual exports of illuminating oil for 1913 were about 1.100,000,000 gallons. Any serious interruption of this commerce would be a great injury to myriads of foreign consumers, as well as to American producers, manufacturers, and exporters of petroleum.

We would highly appreciate the favor of some intimation as to what extent the Government would support our contentions, viz, that the ordinary illuminating oil of commerce, marketed through oldestablished, world-wide channels, is distinctly exempt from contraband classification.

I have [etc.]

WM. H. LIBBY

The Acting Secretary of State to William H. Libby

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 22, 1914.

SIR: The Department acknowledges the receipt of your letter of September 18, and in reply begs leave to say that the action which the Department may appropriately take at this time in the matter submitted by you will be for the Department to submit requests to the governments of the countries at war for a more specific declaration on contraband covering ordinary illuminating oil of commerce, consigned to industrial concerns.

The Department deems it hardly advisable to comply with your request for an intimation as to the extent to which the Government of the United States would support your contention that illuminating oil is distinctly exempt from contraband classification, in view of the present indefinite attitude of the several belligerents on the subject of contraband as applied to petroleum and its products.

If you desire the Department to do so, it will submit through diplomatic officers a request for a more specific declaration by the belligerent powers.

I am [etc.]

For the Acting Secretary of State:

JOHN E. OSBORNE
Assistant Secretary

File No. 763.72112/141

The Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (by William H. Libby) to the Secretary of State

New York, October 1, 1914.

SIR: In continuation of my letter of September 18, I have the honor on behalf of the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) to acknowledge receipt of your courteous reply thereto, dated September 22, and from which I quote the final phrase:

If you desire the Department to do so, it will submit through diplomatic officers a request for a more specific declaration by the belligerent powers.

May we not respectfully and seriously urge upon the Department to substitute for such request a notification to the belligerent powers that the United States Government does not feel justified in conceding the illuminating oil of commerce as fairly liable to contraband classification?

It was not my intention to suggest that requests should be submitted by our Government to the governments of the countries at war for "a more specific declaration" on the subject. Such requests could, I fear, have but one result, as they would imply that it was left to those governments exclusively to say what was, and what was not, contraband. The course of events in the present war leaves little or no room for doubt that the belligerents, particularly those controlling the sea, would avail themselves of the opportunity thus afforded. to bring within the scope of belligerent inhibition still another branch of neutral trade upon the supposition that the cut

« AnteriorContinuar »