ting off of commerce, even in innocent articles having no distinctive. military use, would tend to put pressure upon the enemy-a supposition which, if it were allowed to prevail, would potentially result in the entire destruction of the trade of neutrals with the belligerent powers, and even serving to seriously embarrass the commerce between neutrals. The following is an extract of a reply from the Department of State, under date of March 7, 1904, to an inquiry made by this company, under date of March 2, 1904, concerning the status of illuminating oil: Under the ordinary rules of international law and taking the Russian announcement in its literal sense, the oils which are declared contraband are those which are "obviously fuel" and are commercially sold as such. This is inferred to be the Russian view, inasmuch as the use of mineral oils for fuel is large in Russia and the commercial distinction between such oils and those used as illuminants and lubricants is well known. The Department does not apprehend Russian interference with innocent traffic in oils obviously different from those declared contraband and in their nature unsuited for belligerent use. It is not thought advisable to raise a question in this regard in advance of a case actually arising. Should a tangible issue be presented, this Department will do everything possible to safeguard the interests of innocent commerce on the part of American citizens. Subsequently, the expectations that had been entertained as to what would be the course of the Russian Government were disappointed. More than a year later, that is to say, on May 18, 1905, the British steamer Oldhamia, with a cargo of illuminating oil valued at more than $120,000 and belonging to this company, was seized by a Russian cruiser, and within a week, after having been placed in charge of a prize crew, was wrecked on Ourop Island and set on fire and abandoned. Claims were duly filed by the owners in the Russian prize courts for the value of the ship and cargo. The court of first instance held that the cargo was not contraband; but after this decision was rendered, the same court, its personnel having been changed, was hastily reconvened, and, as thus reconstituted, it rendered a sentence of confiscation, which was affirmed on appeal. Against this sentence the British Government, as well as the Government of the United States, protested, the former government, in a memorandum of January 23, 1911, saying: PAR. 6. That, even assuming that such consignment could bear any contraband character (which His Majesty's Government were not prepared to admit), it would be necessary to prove that it was destined for the use of the enemy's forces, and not a shadow of evidence to that effect was produced. It is a notorious fact that, during the Russo-Japanese war, the Russian Government, without resorting to the recognized measure of blockade, sought to cut off the entire trade of neutrals with Japan by means of an extension of the list of contraband, in which it sought to include in the most absolute terms both provisions and raw cotton, thus striking a direct blow at the export trade of this country. The creation of a similar condition of things is now threatened. (See my letter of this date re detention of Ocean and Chester.) Thus, not only in the present existing case is illuminating oil apparently asserted to be contraband, but the effect of the neutral destination is altogether ignored. As was pointed out in my letter of the 18th of September, the annual exportation of illuminating oil from this country amounts to 1,100,000,000 gallons. This extensive and legitimate commerce is now gravely menaced by a claim which involves nothing less than a pretention to supervise, to regulate, to subject to conditions and even to prohibit sea-borne commerce, not only between neutrals and belligerents; but also between neutrals themselves, without regard to the limitations imposed upon belligerent action by the law of contraband and blockade. In view, therefore, of the position taken both by the American and the British Governments in the aforesaid case of the Oldhamia, would not the Department be consistent in maintaining the non-contraband classification of illuminating oil, and would not the British Government be correspondingly inconsistent in contesting this? No American industry was more instantaneously and acutely affected by the war than the petroleum industry, and should the Department be unable to secure non-contraband classification for illuminating oil, the entire export commerce in petroleum products would be menaced, inasmuch as fuel oil and lubricants are already under the ban of declared conditional contraband. I have [etc.] WM. H. LIBBY The Acting Secretary of State to William H. Libby DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 26, 1914. SIR: The Department has received your letter of the 1st instant, wherein, with reference to your letter of the 18th ultimo, you urge that the Government of the United States notify the belligerent powers that this Government does not feel justified in conceding that the illuminating oil of commerce is fairly liable to contraband classification. In reply you are advised that the Department is earnestly endeavoring to obtain equitable treatment for American commerce under existing conditions. In this relation, the Department begs to call your attention to the fact that it has made representations to the British Government against the seizure of the steamer John D. Rockefeller, in view of the fact that illuminating oil is not listed. as absolute contraband of war by the British Government and in view of the apparent neutral destination of the vessel. I am [etc.] File No. 763.72112/240 ROBERT LANSING SHIPMENTS OF NAVAL STORES Senator Fletcher to the Secretary of State Washington, October 27, 1914. SIR: Herewith is telegram just received from Mr. E. J. L'Engle of Jacksonville, Florida, who is speaking for the naval stores people. The term "naval stores," as you know, means spirits of turpentine and rosin. Both are shipped in barrels. They would constitute necessary ballast for cotton cargoes. Two thirds of the market, or more, for naval stores is found in foreign countries, but particularly in Europe. This market having been cut off by the war leaves the industry in a very precarious condition. It would be a blessing to the naval stores people, which include all the states where the yellow pine grows, if these markets could be opened up, or if shipments could be safely made to them. I hope, therefore, you will make every possible effort to secure the allowance of naval stores along with cotton shipments. I would be obliged if you will advise what conclusion is reached after you have taken the matter up with the British Ambassador. Very respectfully and sincerely, DUNCAN U. FLETCHER [Enclosure-Telegram] Mr. J. L'Engle to Senator Fletcher Jacksonville, Florida, October 27, 1914. Newspapers report that British Government has announced intention permit cotton shipments direct to Germany; our people regard it very important to secure right guaranteed by similar declaration to ship naval stores to Germany as part of cotton cargoes. Naval stores shipments necessary ballast for cotton cargoes. I understand that neither cotton nor naval stores are contraband of war and we would be greatly obliged if you would ask State Department to secure declaration from British Ambassador to this effect in order facilitate joint shipments of naval stores and cotton from Atlantic and Gulf ports direct to Germany. If this assurance can be secured it will constitute important and far-reaching measure of relief to naval stores industry. Please answer. E. J. L'ENGLE The Acting Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Spring Rice) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 29, 1914. MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: The positive declaration by your Government that they will not seize shipments of cotton as contraband has relieved the tension which has prevailed among the American planters and shippers due to a feeling of apprehension and uncertainty as to the British policy. These I desire now to call your attention to certain other commodities produced in our Southern States, as to which there appears to be the same anxiety as there was in regard to cotton. products are turpentine and rosin, which have the misleading trade term of "naval stores." It would be a great satisfaction if you could obtain from your Government as clear a statement of the immunity of these products from seizure as they were good enough to make in regard to cotton. Neither in the lists of absolute or conditional contraband proclaimed by your Government nor in the proposed lists, which have been communicated to this Department, do I find either turpentine or rosin. I know that you appreciate the desirability of allaying the apprehension which prevails as to certain articles of trade which this country wishes to export to Europe and which seem to possess no qualities making them 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. If you can take this matter up with London, it will be a service to this Government in relieving a situation which is growing daily more embarrassing. I am [etc.] ROBERT LANSING File No. 763.72112/282 The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Acting Secretary of State BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, November 1, 1914. SIR: In your note of the 29th ultimo you called my attention to the anxiety which prevailed in the Southern States as to the liability to seizure of turpentine and rosin as "naval stores." You point out that however groundless such apprehension may be it is well to quiet it by assurances which can leave no doubt of the intention of the belligerent governments. In compliance with your request I at once communicated with Sir Edward Grey pointing out to him that your Government considered it desirable in the interests of neutral trade to relieve a situation which was daily growing more embarrassing. Sir Edward Grey has now informed me in reply that in view of the representations which you have made he has pleasure in giving the official assurance that the British Government has not in fact any present intention of interfering with turpentine and rosin. At the same time, and in order to prevent misapprehension in the future or the establishment of a precedent which may prove embarrassing to both our Governments in the future, Sir Edward Grey wishes me to point out that the British Government has published a contraband list for the guidance of the public and that it would not be advisable to make official statements in answer to individual enquiries as to whether or not specified articles can be held to fall under any of the heads enumerated in the contraband lists and are therefore immune from capture. You will no doubt agree that if statements in answer to individual enquiries become a general practice, there would be a constant succession of such enquiries and there would be no finality. In accordance with the recognised tradition of British and American law, the proper interpretation of contraband lists is a matter which each Government reserves for the decision of its prize courts. CECIL SPRING RICE I am [etc.] File No. 763.72112/515 The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State1 No. 441] BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, December 22, 1914. I have the honour to inform you that I am in receipt of a telegram from my Government stating that circumstances have been brought to their notice which have convinced them of the necessity of not allowing resinous products to be freely imported by the enemy countries and it has accordingly been decided to add to the list of absolute contraband the heading "resinous products, camphor and turpentine (oil spirit)." 2 I have [etc.] File No. 763.72112/689 CECIL SPRING RICE The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America to the Secretary of State Washington, December 29, 1914. SIR: On two earlier occasions we have addressed you on behalf of members of this chamber who in a manner and a degree which we believe are without justification according to the established usages of nations are being impeded in ordinary business transactions. In one instance we called to your attention action on the part of Great Britain which has been prejudicial to our export trade in copper. Subsequently, we represented to you that Great Britain, even after a period sufficiently long to organize a system of censorship which will take reasonable account of the interests of neutral countries in neutral trade, continues arbitrarily and without notice to interrupt commercial cablegrams transmitted between the United States and neutral countries. On behalf of commercial organizations in the South and their members who are interested in the production of turpentine and rosin, we now hope that steps can be taken to have Great Britain rescind its decision of December 23, 1914, that turpentine and rosin are absolute contraband of war. Even in the days when sailing ships were in use, both as naval vessels and in the merchant marine, rosin and turpentine could not be said to be used exclusively for war. Certainly they do not to-day 1 For a statement by the Secretary of State that the information conveyed in the British Ambassador's note of December 22 "is received with profound regret" and reserving "for future communication the objections which this Government may have to the action of the British Government in listing resin and turpentine as contraband of war," see the Secretary's note to the British Ambassador, December 24, post, p. 371. 2 The announcement of this action provoked widespread demonstrations from the American interests affected by it. Telegrams and letters urging some action to avert the effects of this "most serious blow to one of the South's greatest industries" were received from governors, senators and congressmen, chambers of commerce, and firms and individuals throughout the Southern States. |