Nominallyboth the Central and Allied powers admitted the ships and conunerce of the United States to their ports; actually, after the first few months of the war, very few ships reached German or Austrian ports; and it proved diffi cult to send cargoes to neutral ports, if of such a nature that they were likely to be re-exported to Germany or Austria.
The first serious controversy between the 'United States and Great Britain arose out of the detention of steamers in Gibraltar, and else where, on the theory that it took tune to go through the cargoes and select the contraband. Another grievance was that the British gov enment seized neutral vessels and ((illegally brought them within its territorial jurisdiction, opmpelling them to submit to the laws and regulations of that nation? In a dispatch of 25 Oct 1915, the United States assumed a championship for general neu tral rights, in accordance with lestablished rules of International conduct upon which Great Britain in the past has held the United States to account? The State Department further declined to yield to the plea that ((the exceptional geographical position of the ene mies of Great Britain require or justify op pressive and illegal practice? The British government was referred to the policy of the United States upon this subject during the Civil War. There was further complaint that the British prize courts did not make their decisions upon the general principles of inter national law, hut were guided by the Orders in Council of the British government from time to time.
On the question of unreasonable delays, the British government gave way, by directing more expedition and discrimination in the search of cargoes. The same result was reached, after. some effort, with regard to interference with! parcels and letter mail. The British govern-i ment set up a regular practice of taking off the rnails in either direction between the United States and Dutch and Scandinavian ports. This led to a formal protest by Secretary Lansing (4 Jan. 1916) insisting that °mails are not to be censored, confiscated or destroyed on the .high seas, even when carried by belligerent mail ships.x' The British government (4 April 1916) replied with the not very convincing argument that as much as 800 pounds of rubber had been sent in a single parcel post; they in sisted on a right to open any sealed pacicage which appeared to contain goods; but promised no longer to seize °real correspondene? Simi lar protests were made against the censorship of telegrams transmitted by cable and wireless, including money transfers. This whole question was complicated with the seizure of dispatches, and private papers of unofficial agents who in many cases were spies of the German govern ment. The documents of accepted ambassadors and agents were not thus restricted; though when the German Ambassador, von Bernstorff, returned to Germany in April 1917, under safe conduct, his baggage was searched at Halifax and correspondence which, in the judgment of the British authorities, was unofficial was seized.
. Another difficulty arose from the seizure of certain subjects of the Allies on board Ameri ran ships. The most serious case was that of a party of German and Austrian subjects bound from the Orient to the United States on board the United States merchant ship China (1916). They were not military officials, and on the protest of the United States, they were eventu ' ally released.
Controversies over The failure of Great Britain to give sanction to the report of the London Conference of 1911 on contraband left that subject in a state of con fusion at the outbreak of the war; for there was no clear understanding as to the status either of military material or of food. As the war progressed it became evident that many articles in common use in time of peace were also essential to the conduct of the war, such as automobiles, copper, flying machines, rubber and in -ron; and also that where all the available ale population was enlisted in the army the istinction between food intended for the civil opulation and that intended for the army or avy no longer existed.
With the Central Powers there was little op portunity to test new theories of contraband. The only significant case was that of the sailing vessel William P. FryG an American ship which, 27 Jan. 1915, iv'rs- captuted_hy_tite-Cier mar_loaded with wheal in= Portland, Ore., the property -of- an American .citi.senr borrint-to English ports °for orders.° The German offi ers at first decided that the food cargo was ontraband, and began to throw it overboard. hey then changed their minds and sunk the ship with most of the cargo. The American gov ernment forthwith protested (31 March 1915) and demanded full damages for the value of the ship and the destruction of the cargo. The German government (5 April) held that the cargo was °conditional contraband° according to the Declaration of London. It then took up the Prussian-American treaty of 1828, under which it admitted that it was not authorized to capture the property of Americans even though contraband, although the United States had made no claim under the treaty. A tedious fcorrespondence followed. The German prize court justified the seizure of the cargo and the destruction of the ship under international law, but admitted responsibihty under the treaty. Arbitration was proposed, but no settlement was reached prior to the declaration of war by the United States in April 1917, which strper seded any other proceedings.