File No. 763.72111/1409a The Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Treasury (McAdoo) [Telegram] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 11, 1915. Referring to your Department's letter of November 13, and this Department's communications of November 14,2 24, 28,3 December 2,* 9, 11, and 14, relative to reports on incoming and outgoing vessels." From results of recent reports of collectors Department deems it unnecessary for collectors to report further under these instructions, except in suspicious cases. Collectors should not, however, relax their vigilance to prevent violations of neutrality or to obtain and report evidence regarding transshipment of cargoes at sea to belligerent warships. The investigations of the collectors in their efforts. to obtain information required by their instructions are having, it is believed, a good effect upon shipowners and attempts at illicit trade in general. File No. 763.72111/1404a W. J. BRYAN The Secretary of State to all Seaport Consuls 6 [Circular telegram] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 11, 1915. You need not report further in response to circular instructions of November 22 and following relative to unneutral service, except in suspicious cases. You will not, however, relax your vigilance to obtain and report information regarding violations of American neutrality and transshipment of cargoes at sea to belligerent warships. BRYAN MAINTENANCE OF NEUTRALITY IN THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE File No. 763.72111/1223 The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State SIR: For some days past the press of this country has reported various incidents of the violation of neutrality of the Panama Canal of which British ships have been accused and the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone has, it is stated, been obliged to ask for an armed force in order to put a stop to these alleged violations. Al 'Not printed. 'Ante, p. 631. Ante, p. 641. *Ante, p. 642. Department's November 24 and December 9, 11, and 14 not printed. though I have received no official representations from you, Sir, I thought it well to request from the British representative in Panama a report on the subject in order that I might be in a position to discuss the matter should it be brought officially to my attention. I now have the honour to state that I have to-day received an answer from Sir C. Mallet, the British Minister in Panama, which is to the following effect: Facts are as follows: The steamship Mallina, an Admiralty collier, arrived here from Acapulco without a bill of health from the American consul. She was in consequence indicted for a violation of the quarantine regulations of the Canal Zone. A nominal fine of $50 was imposed on her by the court. At Balboa the master of the Mallina was ordered to sea early the next morning and notified the port captain accordingly. Clearance papers were ready, but it appears that the master had expected that they would be sent to him together with some stores which he had ordered from the commissariat of the Canal. Neither the stores nor the clearance papers arrived. He thus had to choose between a violation of the customs law and a violation of neutrality. Of these two courses he thought the wiser course was to choose the former, and accordingly left without his clearance papers. It further appears that the Mallina was accused by his excellency Colonel Goethals, the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone, of having used her wireless installation within the limits of the Canal Zone and thus having violated the regulations governing the use of radio instruments in waters under American jurisdiction. As a matter of fact the Mallina has no installation for wireless telegraphy. A communication has now been received in writing from his excellency stating that he had been wrongly informed. As far as I am aware no breach of neutrality of any kind has been committed by British vessels within the waters of the Canal Zone. British warships have no doubt when off the coast used powerful wireless telegraph installations and this may have given rise to the rumours current in the press. Neither the warships nor the colliers have, so far as I know, been guilty of any infringement of the regulations. It will be in the recollection of your Department, as also of the Secretary for War, that I have on several occasions asked to be supplied with the regulations which as I understood were being prepared for enforcing neutrality in the Canal Zone. It was the desire of my Government that such information should be obtained as soon as possible in order that it might be communicated to British ships. On August 6 this Embassy addressed to you an urgent note1 enquiring whether any and, if so, what restrictions would be placed on belligerent vessels passing through the Panama Canal, and on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of the same month Mr. Barclay again spoke as to the necessity of issuing regulations for the Canal Zone without delay, in view of the short time remaining before the opening of the Canal. It was not until November 17 that the Embassy received the memorandum of the State Department dated November the 14th,' enclosing copy of the rules and regulations governing the use of the Panama Canal by vessels of the belligerents and the maintenance of neutrality by United States in the Canal Zone. On receipt of these regulations I telegraphed to my Government and also transmitted the regulations, which as you are aware are of some length, by post to London. My telegram only contained a brief summary. The regulations themselves could not have reached London before the last days of November, and it was materially impos 'Not printed. For the rules transmitted on November 14, see the proclamation of neutrality dealing with the Canal Zone, November 13, ante, p. 552. sible for ships which reached the Canal Zone in the first days of December to be cognisant of the full text. The above facts, of which you will find proof in the archives of your Department, will show that this Embassy has, I trust, been guilty of no negligence in the communication of the regulations. I now have the honour to appeal to your courtesy in order to be informed what charges, if any, have been brought by the United States authorities against British ships or officers for violations of the Canal Zone regulations in order that such charges may receive the fullest investigation. I trust I need not say that it is the desire of His Majesty's Government that British ships and officers should conform in every way to every detail of the regulations imposed by the United States authorities under the authority of the President and in conformity with the treaty obligations of Great Britain. I have [etc.] CECIL SPRING RICE File No. 763.72111/1239 The German Ambassador (Bernstorff) to the Counselor for the J. No. A 3180] Department of State GERMAN EMBASSY, Washington, December 21, 1914. MY DEAR MR. LANSING: I learn that the British S. S. Mallina and Tremeadow, which served as tenders to British cruisers, now demand to be allowed to coal in Panama and to leave for Australia, alleging that they have ceased to be tenders of British warships. I beg to draw your attention to the fact that, as far as can be seen from here, their case, in the principal points, is identical with the case of the German S. S. Locksun.1 I am [etc.] J. BERNSTORFF The Counselor for the Department of State to the German Ambassador (Bernstorff) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 23, 1914. MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: In reply to your note of the 21st instant, with reference to the British S. S. Mallina and Tremeadow, which you state have served as tenders to British cruisers, and are demanding coal in the Panama Canal Zone, I would advise you that these vessels have been considered by the Canal authorities as coming under rule 2 of the President's proclamation of November 13 last in relation to the neutrality of the Panama Canal Zone,2 which 1 See the section on treatment of belligerent warships, their crews and tenders, in American ports-internment of the Geier and Locksun-ante, p. 583. 2 1 Ante, p. 552. accords to transports or fleet auxiliaries the same treatment as that given to belligerent vessels of war. I am [etc.] ROBERT LANSING File No. 763.72111/1273 The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State No. 448] BRITISH EMBASSY, Washington, December 25, 1914. SIR: With reference to my note No. 432 of the 18th instant on the subject of the neutrality rules of the Panama Canal Zone I have the honour to inform you that I have received a further statement from His Majesty's Minister in Panama to the effect that certain British colliers had violated the quarantine regulations by arriving without a bill of health from an American consular officer at the port of departure, as the law requires. These acts, the Minister states, were involuntary on the part of the masters of these vessels but representations have been made and steps have now been taken in order to inform British masters as to the requirements of the law. With regard to the statement as to the improper use of the wireless apparatus by British ships, the Minister states that only one of them, the Protesilaus, was fitted with a wireless apparatus and that he had understood from the master that this was dismantled immediately on the arrival of the ship in port. It appears, however, from subsequent enquiries that she received a wireless code message while lying in the bay at 8 p. m., December 10, and requested the landing station to receive in plain language a message for the British Consul. The reply was in the negative and the wireless was then dismantled and was not used again. With regard to the breach of the "law" (but not of the "neutrality" regulations) by the steamer Mallina, as already explained, she had not received her clearance papers at the hour fixed for her departure by the authorities, under the neutrality rules, and she consequently chose the lesser of the two evils, by leaving without her clearance papers. The Mallina had no wireless apparatus. The action of the local authorities in the case of the Protesilaus was of course in entire accordance with the practice observed in United States waters and which has been the subject of correspondence with this Embassy. The British Government, as you, Sir, are aware, has always been of the opinion that the sealing of wireless apparatus in neutral waters is right and proper. The Minister's report has been transmitted to Sir Edward Grey, who has now instructed me to inform you that the British Government will impress upon British shipmasters the duty of studying the neutrality rules of the Zone and of adhering to them as closely as possible. But I venture to point out that the rules are not six weeks old and that until they are well known and have been acted on for some time incidents such as that of the Mallina are liable to occur. Should this happen, which I trust will not be the case, the requisite action will no doubt be taken by the United States authorities with their wonted courtesy and consideration and His Majesty's Government confidently hope that too much importance should not be attached to such incidents especially at this early date after the publication of the rules. I have [etc.] CECIL SPRING RICE The Acting Secretary of State to the British Ambassador (Spring Rice) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 2, 1915. EXCELLENCY: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of December 25, 1914, with reference to the neutrality rules and quarantine regulations of the Panama Canal Zone. The contents of your note will receive the Department's attentive consideration in connection with your excellency's previous note on the above subject, dated December 18. I have [etc.] ROBERT LANSING ACTIONS OF BELLIGERENT WARSHIPS OUTSIDE TERRITORIAL WATERS-HOVERING File No. 763.72111/132 The British Ambassador (Spring Rice) to the Secretary of State MEMORANDUM His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador has received instructions to draw the attention of the United States Government to the proceedings of the German warships Leipzig and Nürnberg. It is a matter of common knowledge that these ships have been lying off the coast of California for some days and it is known that the German Consul visited the Leipzig in a tug in which the San Francisco Examiner sent out papers containing information of the whereabouts and movements of belligerent men-of-war. This incident was characterized by Rear Admiral Charles F. Pond of the United States Navy, in a notice issued August 13, as unneutral service and a violation of the President's proclamation of neutrality. He warned the newspapers and all persons that acts of this character would be done at the peril of the persons or organization taking part in them. His Majesty's Government are informed that on August 13 the two German cruisers which were lying just outside the three-mile limit at the entrance to San Francisco were in constant communication by radio-telegraphy with the German Consul. Such messages between belligerent men-of-war and their consul can hardly be presumed to refer to anything else than warlike operations. |