Secretary of State Bryan further elucidated the position of the government of the United States on this important point *Those in this country,* he said, Kwho sympathize with Ger many and Austria-Hungary appear te assume that some obligation rests upon this Govern ment, in the performance of its neutral duty, to prevent all trade in contraband, and thus te equalize the differenee due to the relative naval strength of the belligerents. No such obliga tion odsts; it would be an urmentral act, an act of partiality on the part of the Government, to adopt such a policy if •the Executive had the power to do so. If Germany and Austria-Htni gary cannot import contraband from this coun try it is not, because of that fact, the duty of the United States to close its markets to the Allies. The, markets of this country are open upon equal terms to all the, world, to every na tion, belligerent or neutral.* Neutral Trade.—The war from the outset hivolved the United States it a diplomatic siruggk for the presereation of its rights as neutral. It 'became the purpose of Great Brit ain to• prevent Germsmy from obtaining sup. plies of a warlike character from overseas countries. In this she conld not fail to run comiter to the interests of the United States, as ttiat coimtry was the great storehouse to which Europe must tam for everything it needed durum the herculean struggle. In fact they situatkm was in many ways analogous to that during the years preceding the War of 1812, when the United States suffered so seL verely from the British Orders in Coimcil and the commercial decrees of Napoleon Bonapatte.
The Declaraticm of London, signed by the representatives of 10 leading powers in 190es was intended to supply an international code relative to the matter of blocka.de, contraband, continuous voyages, convoy, tmnentral service and indemnity for seizure. The declaratioe contained specific sdsechsles of contraband and also a list ctf snick-. which should never be classed as contraband, this list to include cotton, rubber, metallic ores and other raw materials. Unfortunately, however, it was ratified by only one power— the United States.
At the outbreak of war the American gov ernment directed its representatives to inquire of the various belligerent countries whether they would agree that the Der.laration of Lon don be applicable t,o naval warfare during the conflict. Austria-Hungary and Germany as sented, but Great Britain ((decided to adopt generally the rules and regulations in question, subject to certain modifications and acklitions? These additions were found to o3ntain a new list of c,ontraband, much more extensive than that agreed upon by the delegates of the Lon don conference. As the terms of the declara tion required its acceptance as a whole the American government then withdrew its sug gestion and announced that it would insist that its rights be defined only by the existing rules of international law and the treaties of the United States with the belligerents.
The problem for Great Britain was how to control trade to her enemies through neutral zountries. The extent to which she could in jure the Central Powers depended upon her ability to prevent transshipment of goods sent from overseas countries to Holland, Denmark, Italy and other neutral powers. On 30 October
1914 she ruled that conditional contraband con signed to a neutral port was liable to seizure when the ultimate destination was plainly the enemy.
On the list of conditional contraband was placed foodstuffs, and over this there soon de veloped a controversy with Holland and the United States. The British goversunent claimed also the right to prevent the Germans from being fed through Holland by holding up shipments of food in excess of Dutch needs. Her attitude in regard to other conditional con traband was similar.
Late in September two cargoes of copper were seized and requisitioned by Great Britain. In October three more shipments consigned (to order) in Italy were detained at Gibraltar. This was followed by the seizure of three American tankers, the Joh% D. Rockefeller, the Brindilla and the Platuria.
Commerce was further endangered by the planting of mines by the various belligerents. Great Britain abstained entirely froin the use of mines in neutral waters durutg the first two months of the war, but found it necessary to adopt counter-measures in order to cope with the German policy of mine-laying,. On 3 Nov. 1914 the British admiralty declared the whole North Sea a military zone. (Within this area merchant shipping of all kinds, traders of all countries, fishing craft, and all other vessels will be exposed to the gravest dangers from mines which it has been necessary to lay and from warships searching vigilantly by. ntght and by day for suspicious craft? In justification of this it was declared that the Germans had scat tered mines on the main route front the United States to England and that peaceful ships had already been blown up by this agency.
Injury done to the conunerce of the United States by the policy of Great Britain finally brought forth, 26 Dec. 1914, a protest from tbe g.overnment. It viewed with concern, it said, (the large number of vessels laden with Amen can goods destined to neutral ports in Europe which have been seized on the high seas, taken into British ports, and detained sometimes for weeks by the British authorities.) On 7 Jan. 1915 a preliminary reply was sent. His majesty's government concurred, it said, in the principle that neutrals abould not be interfered with by a belligerent save when absolutely necessary to protect its safety, but claimed the right to interrupt contraband des tined for an enemy country. As to the extent of British interference there had been much misconception. Exports from New York to Denmarlc, Sweden, Ncrrway, Italy and Holland for the month of November 1914 were more than twice as great as for Noveniber 1911 (That the existence of a state of war on such a sc,ale has had a very adverse effect upon cer tain .gteat industries, suc.h as cotton, is obvious; but it is submitted that this is due to the gen eral cause of diminished purchasing power of such countries as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, rather than to interference with trade with neutral countries.) The Brit ieh government pointed out that the exports of copper and foodstuffs to neutral powers adja cent to the Central nations had increased rap idly and that the presumption was clear that the bulk of the shipments were intended not for their own use, but for belligerent peoples.