under date September 20, 1914, protesting against the laying of German mines. It is asserted in the protest that the mines were laid in a way contrary to international law and in forbidden localities; that they were not sufficiently anchored or under proper observance; and were not notified to the neutrals in accordance with rule. Furthermore attention is called to the declarations of the first German delegate at the Second Hague Peace Conference which are in contradiction with such practice and likewise to the deliberate injury to neutral trade which Germany's action on the open sea is alleged to involve. The German Government makes the following reply to this protest: I. In condemning the alleged German practice the British Government relies on the 8th Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, relative to the laying of automatic submarine contact mines. It overlooks the fact that under Article 7 of this Convention its provisions do not apply unless all the belligerents are parties to the Convention. Now Russia, which is allied with England, has not ratified the Agreement; it is therefore not binding by international law on any of the participants in the present war. Nevertheless the German Government has voluntarily held itself bound by its provisions, with the exception of Article 2, with regard to which France as well as Germany made express reservations. The assertion of the British Government that these provisions have been violated by Germany is emphatically denied. II. To firstly the British Government finds it a breach of international law that the German mines were apparently laid by fishing vessels, possibly under neutral flag, under the pretense of following the ordinary peaceable avocations of fishing. This assertion is incorrect and an invention; the German mines were laid exclusively by German warships. 2. The British Government complains that German mines were laid as far as 50 miles from the British coast and not only on British but neutral trade routes. The Convention does not stipulate how far from the coast and ports of an enemy mines may be anchored, and there is no established practice in this respect in international law; moreover the English statement of the distance of the German mines from the menaced coast is much exaggerated. The mines have been laid as close as the conditions of the anchoring grounds and the character of the coast permitted. The assertion that neutral trade routes have been blocked is untrue; no German mines have been laid in any trade route from the high seas to a neutral port. 3. The British Protest maintains further that in numerous cases German mines were found adrift without having become harmless. The anchoring of mines by Germany has been carried out with all possible precaution. If some have drifted from their moorings in consequence of currents or storms their number is certainly much smaller than that of mines laid by England which have drifted ashore on the Belgian and Dutch coasts and have caused damage there through their undiminished explosive power. 4. The obligation of keeping mines under surveillance which the British Government complains has been violated can naturally be enjoined upon a belligerent only as long as he retains command over that part of the seat of war where he has laid mines in a manner permitted by international law. As a rule, therefore, this obligation will apply only to defensive mines but not to offensive mines. When a belligerent has properly laid offensive mines and has duly notified. their laying he is relieved of all further responsibility. 5. In the British protest the charge is made that the German Government never issued any proclamation as to the places where mines were laid. This charge is not founded in fact. On August 7, 1914, the German Government communicated to all the neutral powers that the trade routes to English ports would be closed by mines by Germany. Neutral shipping was therefore notified of the fact of the laying of the mines and the zones where it had to look out for German mines. If the German Government did not give the exact situation of the various mines this may well be understood from the conditions which forced the laying of the mines. III. The volume of strong words and moral indignation with which the British protest denounces the German Government to the neutral powers is not, therefore, justified at all by Germany's practice. This protest is plainly nothing but a cloak to cover up the serious violations of existing international law laid down in the Declaration of London, indulged in by England and a pretext to prepare public opinion for the closing of the North Sea, contrary to international law, which has since taken place and is equivalent in its economic importance to a blockade of neutral coasts. In view of these facts it is doubly remarkable that the British Government constitutes itself the advocate of the "established and generally accepted principle of the freedom of the seas for peaceful trade." Obviously in the eyes of England, which is at war, the only peaceful trade is that neutral trade which brings goods to England, but not that which carries or might carry goods to her opponents. The German Government is convinced that the continual violation of neutral trade by England will everywhere place the British protest in its true light. The German Government is satisfied that for its part, in taking the measures required by military exigency, it has reduced as far as possible risk or injury to neutral shipping, and has strictly followed the rules hitherto applied by civilized nations to maritime warfare. On the other hand, the infringement of vital neutral interests by England is capable of justification by no military exigency, since it has no connection with any military operations and is merely intended to strike at the economic system of the adversary by crippling legitimate neutral trade. This fundamental disregard of the very freedom of the seas which it has invoked deprives the British Government of any right to appear as the advocate of this freedom in the question of the laying of mines, which is far less injurious to neutrals. BERLIN, November 7, 1914. No. 271.] Ambassador Gerard to the Secretary of State. AMERICAN EMBASSY, Berlin, November 17, 1914. SIR: With reference to your cable No. 5981 of November 9, 1914, and my reply No. 850 2 of November 16, I have the honor to transmit to you herewith a copy in translation of a communication received from the Imperial Foreign Office, dated November 14, 1914, relative to the regulations for navigation in the German bay of the North Sea. Two copies of the publication, entitled Nachrichten für Seefahrer, in which these regulations are printed, are likewise enclosed. I have, etc., JAMES W. GERARD. [Inclosure-Translation.] FOREIGN OFFICE. Nr. II U 4970-89541. The Foreign Office has the honor to inform the Embassy of the United States of America in reply to the Note Verbale of 12th instant, 1 1 Not printed. 2 Not printed; gives substance of inclosure herewith. F. O. No. 1078, that the following are the material regulations, governing navigation in the German Bay of the North Sea: 1. Steamships are permitted to make for the German coast, to enter or leave the mouths of rivers only from sunrise to sunset, and in clear weather. Ships attempting to point for the coast in the dark, in foggy or thick weather, run the risk of being shot at. 2. All commercial steamers bound for the Eider, Elbe, Weser, and Jade must first point for the Listertief-Buoy; those bound for the Ems should make directly for its mouth. 3. In the interest of the safety of the ships, a pilot is obligatory from the Listertief-Buoy. 4. If ships can not obtain pilots, on account of bad weather or for other reasons, they must either anchor or put out to sea again. The approximate location of the Listertief-Buoy is 55° 34' North, 8° 172' East. For the rest reference made to issue No. 59 of the Nachrichten für Seefahrer of 4th instant, pages 1006 and 1007, two copies of which are attached.1 American shipping interests can obtain any further information from the Nachrichten für Seefahrer which is accessible to them. BERLIN, November 14, 1914. The Secretary of State to Ambassador Gerard. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 8, 1914. SIR: In further acknowledgment of your despatch No. 261, of November 13, 1914, transmitting a copy in translation of the reply of the German Government to the protest of the British Government against the laying of German mines, you are informed that a copy thereof has been forwarded to the American Ambassador at London for transmission to the British Foreign Office without comment. For the Secretary of State: ROBERT LANSING. I am, etc., 1 Not printed; see correspondence in cases of the Evelyn and Carib, pp. 52-73. Consul General Skinner to the Secretary of State. [Extract.] AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL, London, December 11, 1914. SIR: I have the honor to enclose herewith a full copy of a circular which I have received from the Admiralty in regard to the navigation of the North Sea and English Channel. I have, etc., ROBERT P. SKINNER. [Inclosure.] NAVIGATION IN THE NORTH SEA AND ENGLISH CHANNEL. It is requested that Shipowners on receiving these instructions will use their utmost endeavour to communicate them as confidentially as possible to the Masters of their vessels, impressing upon them the necessity for preventing the information from reaching the enemy. These instructions should not be allowed to come into the hands of any persons who are not directly affected by them. The previous Notice on Navigation in the North Sea (dated the 14th October, 1914) is canceled. A. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. 1. Local Naval or Military Authorities may, at any time when they consider it necessary, close a port during certain hours without previous warning. 2. Attention is called to the notice on the inside cover of all Admiralty Sailing Directions and their Supplements, and to the following Admiralty Notices to Mariners of 1914: No. 1 of 1st January. No. 1528 of 14th September, Thames Approaches. No. 1727 of 7th November, River Mersey. No. 1730 of 10th November, Orkney Islands. No. 1752 of 16th November, East Coast Ports. In the Notice to Mariners, No. 1752 of 16th November, the position of the Pilotage station of the River Humber to be established by the 27th November should read "7 miles E. S. E. (magnetic) from Spurn Point." |