THE BRITISH REPLY AND AMERICAN • COMMENTS.
ON the whole, the reception of Sir Edward Grey's reply to President Wilson's protest has been friendly, and has furnished a most gratifying proof of the general fair- mindedness of the American Press. Take, for example, the Vela York Press, which, in commenting on Sir Edward Grey's reply, said : " The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs makes out so good a case with the figures which he submits, to show that our exports to neutral countries have not only not dropped, but have multiplied many times, that if he is right in his statistics—and it is incon- ceivable that he should use statistics of which he is not sure—we have no case at all." That statement goes even further than English writers would be prepared to go, for on this side of the Atlantic we all admit that American shippers and shipowners have a case. Our whole con- tention is that their case does not hold against the case we are able to put forward. No doubt all American papers are not equally friendly. Some English correspondents at New York and Washington have telegraphed a very large percentage of unfriendly comments. In doing so it is reasonable to assume that they were actuated solely by a desire to let their countrymen see the worst that Americans have to say upon the subject, and in certain conditions of international feeling that would be a wise course to follow. At the present moment it is distinctly unwise. When the British people are at all in a tight place they are never in a mood to be bullied, and such arrogant claims as a few of the American papers have put forward are certain to arouse resentment on this side. In the interests of good fellow- ship with the United States, it would have been better if they had not been given the wholly disproportionate importance accorded by the cable. The issues involved have been a good deal simplified since Sir Edward Grey's reply was published. There is clearly now no difference of principle between the two countries. The American protest frankly recognized the right of belligerents to interfere with neutral commerce " where such interference is necessary to protect the belli- gerent's national safety." That is the only right of interference that we claim. It is claimed by every belligerent in every war, and the United States itself has a record on the subject which goes beyond anything put forward on our behalf in the present controversy. The real question now involved is one of fact. Are Americans shipping contraband of war to Germany, and are we inter- fering with American legitimate trade to a greater extent than the facts justify ? So far as the first question is con- cerned, Sir Edward Grey's figures furnish a prinwilacie ease of very great strength. Here are the figures which he quotes for the total exports from New York to the neutral countries contiguous to our enemies ;— Sports won! New Nor. 1913. Nov. 1914.
York for Dollar.. Dollar..
Denmark ... 668,000 ... 7,101030 Sweden ... 877,000 ... 2,868,000 Norway ... 477,000 ... 2,818,000 Italy ... 2,971,000 ... 4,781,000 Holland ... 4,889,000 ... 8,960,000
It will be observed that these figures only concern exports from New York, and therefore do not touch the question of cotton, which is greatly perturbing the Southern States in the Union. But on this point Sir Edward Grey's answer is conclusive. Cotton is not, and has not been, treated by us as contraband of war, and consequently there is no interruption whatever on our part to the free transit of American cotton destined either for neutral or for German consumption. When allowance has been made for this fact, it will be seen that, whatever else the Americans may have the right to complain of, they cannot complain that their trade with neutral countries has been destroyed by our sea power. On the contrary, the figures suggest that the state of war has itself stimulated American trade, SO that Americans are profiting rather than losing by the war. This is evidently the view of some of the American papers. A telegram from Washington to the Morning Post of January 11th states: "The New York Times takes a very optimistic view of the future of business conditions in America as the result of the war. . . . In this respect the situation reproduces that during the Napoleonic Ware, when trade piled before our doors faster than we could take it in." If this accurately repredents the general condition of American trade, the case for President Wilson's protest against our interference with a particular branch of American trade becomes small indeed. Our contention is that neutral countries, or persons resident in them, are acting as agents for Germany. Americans reply that this is not the case ; that the neutral countries concerned are bona fide purchasers for their own consumption of the goods which they are now getting in such large quantities from the United States ; and that the fact that they are buying so much more than a year ago is due to their failure to obtain the supplies which they previously drew from Germany. Which of these two points of view is correct need not be for the moment discussed; but either way the Americans are enjoying an enormous increase in their trade as a consequence of the war, and therefore on this bead it is not easy to discover why they should be snaking complaint. On the specific question of copper, Sir Edward Grey also quotes some very significant figures. During the period of war, up to the end of the first three weeks of December, 1914, the exports of copper from the United States to Italy were 36,285,000 lb.; in the corresponding period of 1913 they were only 15,202,000 lb. The other neutral countries contiguous to the belligerents are not shown separately in the United States returns, but are included in the heading " Other Europe "—that is to say, Europe other than the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Holland, and Italy. The figures under this heading are 1914, 35,347,000 lb.; 1913, 7,271,000 lb. Here again the obvious inference is that these countries would not have increased their imports of copper to such an enormous extent unless they were passing it on to Germany. The American reply is that -these countries want the copper for their own consumption. In the case of Italy this contention is plausible, for apparently Italy is making extensive war preparations. It is more difficult to accept the same explanation as regards the other neutral States. But whether it be true or not, the fact remains that the Americans are doing a very much larger trade than before, and therefore again it is difficult to see what they have to complain of.
Indeed, if we examine all the Press comments that have yet appeared, the point upon which the Americans mainly insist that they have a grievance is our exercise of the right of search. That we possess a right of search no American newspaper or official has yet ventured to deny. All
that Americans complain of is that we exercise our admitted right in a way which is inconvenient to them. Let it be said at once that if it were possible to exercise our right of search without inconveniencing the Americans or ally other neutrals we should gladly do so. But we have yet to be shown how that is possible. The particular point of which the Americans complain is that we take their ships into our harbours in order that we may have them thoroughly searched. How else is the work of searching to be thoroughly carried out? Obviously it is impossible to search a modern liner thoroughly on the high seas. Sir Edward Grey specifically mentions the possibility that copper may be concealed in bales of cotton. Anybody who has seen cotton baled will know how easy it is to conceal large quantities of any foreign substance inside a bale of cotton in such a manner that it cannot be discovered until the bale has been pulled to pieces. In the case of a heavy substance like copper, a preliminary test would be to weigh the bale ; but even so, there would be no proof of the presence of copper until the bale had been unpacked, and that is an elaborate process. It is certain that if our cruisers attempted to effect a sufficiently complete search of American liners on the high seas, American shippers and shipowners would complain even more than if the ship were brought into port. In writing the other day on this subject, we suggested that, as an alternative to searching American ships after they have sailed, a staff of British officials should be employed to supervise the loading of the ship in the American harbour from which it sails. Short of this expedient, we do not see how it is possible to refrain from bringing American ships into our ports, as the only effective means of exercising that right of search which the Americans claimed for themselves when they were belligerents, and which they fully admit we are entitled to claim now.
The only other point to which the American Press has directed much comment is Sir Edward Grey's significant hint with reference to the breaches of international law by the German Government. The passage is worth quoting. After referring to the seizure of foodstuffs, Sir Edward Grey says :—
" His Majesty's Government are prepared to admit that food- stuff. should not bo detained and put into a Prise Court without presumption that they are intended for the armed forces of the enemy or the enemy Government. We believe that this rule has been adhered to in practice hitherto . . . and it is our present intention to adhere to the rule, though we cannot give an unlimited and unconditional undertaking M view of the departure by those against whom we are fighting from hitherto accepted rules of civilization and humanity, and the uncertainty as to the extent to which such rules may bo violated by them in future."
On this point the American comment is that Sir Edward Grey apparently thinks " that it is right to punish our commerce for the sins of German and Austrian troops in the field." Such a comment shows a complete misappre- hension of the whole British attitude. We have not the slightest desire to punish American commerce or any neutral commerce. Our whole object is to destroy our enemies, and it is only so far as American commerce inter- feres with that object that we interfere with American commerce. That the interference may have to be greater if the Germans continue to violate the rules of humanity and civilization ought to be sufficiently obvious to any outside critic. It was, indeed, particularly with a view to such contingency that all the nations of the world twice assembled at the Hague to consider how far the opera- tions of war might be mitigated, for they all realized that "methods of frightfulness" not only recoil on those who practise them, but also involve additional suffering for the whole of the world. Unfortunately the American Government, which took such an exceptionally prominent part in the Hague Conferences, have since taken no part at all in upholding the humane decisions there unani- mously arrived at. That is a matter for the conscience of the American people, and certainly nobody in this country has the least desire to punish any section of the American people for the failure of their Government to make good the American signature to the Hague Con- ventions. All we desire to insist on, and must insist on, is our right to interfere with neutral trade where, to use President Wilson's own words, " such interference is mani- festly an imperative necessity to protect our national safety:'
Previous page
