Sept. 11, Oct. 3, and Oct. 27, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 865.85/528, /542, /567, /575, /597, /604, /613, /627, and /644. These protests referred to the previous Italian complaints against the action of the United States in taking possession of these ships, and said that requisitioning "constitutes a further and more extensive violation of Italian property rights". On April 26, 1941 the Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee resolved: To recommend to the Governments of the American Republics: a. That they declare that the foreign flag vessels in American Interports, the normal commercial activities of which have been inter- American rupted as a consequence of the war, may now be utilized by the action, 1941 American republics in accordance with the rules of international law and the provisions of their respective national legislations, in such a manner as to promote the defense of their economies as well as the peace and security of the continent. The utilization of said vessels may be effected by the American republics either through agreements with the owners of the vessels or by virtue of the right of each of the American republics to assume complete jurisdiction and control over such vessels, and as they may deem it convenient to satisfy their own requirements. b. That just and adequate compensation for the utilization of the said vessels be made in accordance with the commonly accepted rules of international law and the national legislations of each of the American republics. In the determination of this compensation, the damages which might have been caused and the other obligations resulting by the presence of these ships in the ports in which they may be, shall be taken into consideration. c. That they reaffirm their full right to the free navigation of those vessels, both in their national and international trade, once they are under the flag of any one of the American republics, and that they agree upon measures tending to facilitate the effective exercise of said right. Department of State, IV Bulletin, no. 97, pp. 531-532 (May 3, 1941). For the plan for the effective use of foreign-flag merchant vessels lying inactive in ports of the Americas, adopted by the Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee on Aug. 28, 1941, see V idem, no. 114, pp. 165-166 (Aug. 28, 1941). See also the resolution adopted by this Committee on Nov. 14, 1941, ibid., no. 126, pp. 403-404 (Nov. 22, 1941). Chilean Decree 310 of February 15, 1941 declared three Danish merchant vessels in a Chilean port to be "of public utility" for the dura- Chile, 1941 tion of the European war and took control over them, stating the Government's intention to compensate the owners for their use. The preamble based the action on the Government's duty to find means by which commerce indispensable to the nation's life might not be interrupted. The Danish Legation protested, declaring the decree to be incompatible with international law and to be a violation of Chilean neutrality. On March 11 the Chilean Government replied that there Mexico, 1941 was no violation of international law and that Chile could see no reason for denying to neutrals what an established practice had allowed to belligerents. In response to a further protest of March 21 the Chilean Government maintained this position, indicated that under modern international law the rights of neutrals should prevail over the rights of belligerents and therefore should include the right to requisition, and explained that Chile had not expropriated the ships since they remained the property of their Danish owners. The Ambassador to Chile (Bowers) to the Secretary of State (Hull), telegram 50, Feb. 16, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 859.85/486; the First Secretary of Embassy at Santiago (Briggs) to Mr. Hull, nos. 1176, 1186, 1187, and 1192, Feb. 18, 20, and 24, 1941 (all with enclosures), ibid. /505, /504, /508, and /518; the Ambassador to Argentina (Armour) to Mr. Hull, no. 2207, Apr. 2, 1941 (with enclosures), ibid. /564; the Chilean Embassy to the Department of State, memorandum, Apr. 24, 1941, ibid. /624. By Decree 819 of May 8, 1941, the Chilean Government took over two additional Danish vessels which had not been affected by Decree 310 of Feb. 15, 1941, stating: "4.-The provisions contained in Decree No. 371, dated February 28, of the present year shall be applied to the vessels ‘Selma' and ‘Laila' and Article 1 of this decree is amended as follows: ""The Danish vessels at present anchored in the port of Talcahuano, "Frida", "Lotta", "Helga", "Selma" and "Laila", shall pass to the authority of the Direction General of the Navy to the end that they may be employed in domestic coastwise traffic or international (traffic) directly or by intermedium of Chilean shipping firms.' The Ambassador to Chile (Bowers) to Secretary Hull, no. 1446, May 14, 1941 (enclosure), MS. Department of State, file 859.85/642. See also Mr. Bowers to Mr. Hull, no. 1439, May 12, 1941, ibid. /641. Decree 1214 issued by the Chilean Ministry of National Defense on May 31, 1941 allowed the operation of these five vessels either by an official agency or through a Chilean shipping company. Decree 1405 of June 28, 1941 authorized the Government to enter into a contract for their operation, and the contract with the company was signed July 11, 1941. Mr. Bowers to Mr. Hull, no. 1678, July 21, 1941, ibid. /705; Mr. Bowers to Mr. Hull, no 1695, July 25, 1941, ibid. /712. On April 1, 1941 the Mexican Government ordered its authorities to take possession of nine Italian and two German ships in the harbors of Tampico and Veracruz. The Italian ship Atlas was thereupon scuttled by its crew at Tampico. The Mexican Ambassador (Nájera) to the Secretary of State (Hull), April 5, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 862.85/1955. The President of Mexico in a decree of Apr. 8, 1941 referred to the effects upon Mexico of the serious disturbance to maritime commerce resulting from the war, and continued: "WHEREAS VI. Confronted by the alarming emergency produced by the lack of means of communication, International Doctrine, since remote times, concedes to the belligerent countries the right traditionally known as 'de Angaria', namely, of acquiring for their own use the transports which may be under their jurisdiction and which belong to neutral countries, provided that the owners thereof are duly compensated for the confiscation of their property; "WHEREAS VII. The most elemental principles of justice and equity have guided the International Doctrine in the sense of attributing the same right to neutral nations, according to the latest precedents in the matter and which (precedents) are accepted by the contemporaneous writers on juridical science, in view of the fact that modern wars cause in these neutral countries emergency situations as critical as those which confront a belligerent country, with the [added] circumstance that the neutral country is absolutely innocent of the origin of the emergency; "WHEREAS IX. Due to motives of the highest justification and to prevent acts of sabotage which would involve serious damage to our maritime transportation, and, further, an inacceptable violation of our laws, the Mexican Government has found itself faced with the necessity of taking into its custody the vessels flying belligerent flags which are tied up in our ports; "Based on the aforesaid considerations, I have seen fit to issue the following "DECREE "ARTICLE 1. The Secretariat of Foreign Relations will notify the diplomatic representatives of the belligerent states whose flags fly from the ships that have been immobilized in national ports that the Government of the United Mexican States has attached these ships in order to utilize them in commercial coastwise service and on the high seas. "ARTICLE 2. The Secretariat of Navy will proceed to the matriculation of these ships and the raising of the national flag on them, and will make without delay a thorough inventory of them. "ARTICLE 4. The Secretariat of Hacienda y Crédito Público will determine the indemnification corresponding to each ship taken over, giving the owners the rights provided for by our laws. The indemnification which is decided upon will be paid at the termination of the war, with interest which will be agreed upon for the time transpiring between the date of this decree and the date of payment." Excelsior (Mexico City), Apr. 9, 1941, p. 1, cols. 4 and 5, enclosure in despatch from the Ambassador to Mexico (Daniels) to Secretary Hull, no. 12557, Apr. 9, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 862.85/1963. The Italian and German Legations in Mexico presented protests, which were rejected by the Mexican Government on the ground that the acts of sabotage carried out in other American ports justified the safety measures taken by Mexico. The Mexican Ambassador (Nájera) to Secretary Hull, Apr. 9, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 862.85/1962. The Italian ship Fella and the German ship Eisenach were set afire by their crews in a Costa Rican port on Mar. 31, 1941. The Costa Rican Government appears to have treated the wrecked hulls as property which it could dispose of as it saw fit. A decree issued by the President of Costa Rica on May 12, 1941 referred to this burning with intent to sink as "a hostile act in violation of our sovereignty", stated that the remains of the ships were endangering 440083-43-vol. VII-36 navigation, noted that the owners were doing nothing toward salvage, and authorized the Ministry of Hacienda to contract for the salvaging of the abandoned hulls. La Gaceta, no. 102, May 13, 1941, enclosure in despatch from the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim in Costa Rica (Dwyre) to the Secretary of State (Hull), no. 3184, May 13, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 862.85/2077; see also Mr. Dwyre to Mr. Hull, no. 3096, Apr. 21, 1941, ibid. /2019. A Peruvian Executive decree of Mar. 14, 1941 declared the navigation of the Danish ship Irland to be "of public utility", and directed the Ministry of Marine to take possession. The decree provided that the ship should sail under the Peruvian flag and should be subject to the laws and regulations governing the Peruvian merchant marine. Upon the termination of the war it was to be returned to its owners, with compensation for its use. El Comercio (Lima), Mar. 16, 1941, enclosure in despatch from the Second Secretary of Embassy at Lima (Butler) to the Secretary of State (Hull), no. 905, Mar. 17, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 859.85/536. On Apr. 7, 1941 the Uruguayan Minister left with the Department of State a note transcribing the text of a Uruguayan decree of Apr. 4, 1941. This decree referred to the "acts of sabotage, fires and sinking of ships having taken refuge because of the war in neutral American ports and waters", stated that "the exercise of the rights of policing to guarantee the public security is a primordial right of the country in whose ports the ships may be stationed", and said that "in accordance with international practices the country which has offered the asylum possesses much greater powers, such as the attachment of merchant ships, their chartering or their employment in the case of public necessity". It provided that Uruguayan authorities should "proceed with the disembarkment of the officers and sailors of the merchant vessels anchored in the Port of Montevideo, Adamello and Fausto of the Italian Flag, and Laura and Chr Sass of the Danish Flag, establishing in the said ships permanent guards which they may consider necessary in order to maintain an effective police vigilance in such way as to prevent and avoid the commission in the interior of the ships of any act of sabotage or that they might be the object from [the] outside of any other class of illegal action". The Uruguayan Minister (Richling) to the Secretary of State (Hull), Apr. 7, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 859.85/584. See also the Chargé d'Affaires ad interim in Montevideo (Chapin) to Mr. Hull, no. 877, Apr. 14, 1941 (enclosure), ibid. 865.85/568. A decree dated Sept. 9, 1941 and published Sept. 11 placed the national port administration in charge of operation of the immobilized merchant vessels then in Montevideo. The American Legation was informed that the decree referred in fact only to the two Italian and two Danish ships already under protective custody but that it might be extended to two Finnish ships still in port. The decree provided that the vessels should fly the Uruguayan flag and should be operated either directly or indirectly by the port administration. The Minister to Uruguay (Dawson) to Mr. Hull, telegram 391, Sept. 11, 1941, ibid. /607. In Mar. 1942 the Uruguayan Government took over the German steamship Tacoma, which had been interned as an auxiliary (see ante, pp. 509510). This action was said to be in the exercise of the right of angary. Mr. Dawson to Mr. Hull, no. 745, Mar. 18, 1942, ibid. 862.85/2315. In Oct. 1940 the Swedish Government announced that nine Norwegian ships then present in Swedish ports had been requisitioned by the Swedish Government (a neutral), in view of the shortage of tonnage in the Baltic. AIRCRAFT §678 In August 1914 a German hydroplane, which had been obliged to come down on the high seas because of damage, was found within territorial waters near the coast of the Netherlands. It was interned with its crew, despite protest of the German Government, which insisted that hydroplanes-especially when they were on the surface of the water-had the character of vessels of war and should, therefore, be allowed to repair the damage and depart. The opinion of the Government of the Netherlands was expressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Loudon, in a note addressed on September 11, 1914 to the German Minister, as follows— aeroplanes, including hydroaeroplanes, could not be considered warships. They are things sui generis which do not fall within the application of the articles of the Proclamation of Neutrality dealing with the treatment of warships. As on the other hand the Proclamation of Neutrality does not contain such provisions with respect to aeroplanes, no doubt can exist on the attitude of the Government of the Queen with respect to them. This attitude is dictated by the general rule by virtue of which any part of the armed force of the belligerent is to be interned when it is found on the territory of the Netherlands. The said rule is found in article 3 of the Proclamation of Neutrality of the Netherlands. This attitude conforms to international law, especially since no special treaty provision exists with respect to the treatment of belligerent aeroplanes on the territory of a neutral Power. [Translation.] In the German Government's reply of September 23 it was contended that the hydroplane in question should not be treated as a thing sui generis, since it belonged to a German warship and consequently did not differ from any other small boat so belonging. The Government of the Netherlands maintained its position, refusing to regard the hydroplane either as a warship or as a boat appertaining to a warship. Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Recueil de diverses communications du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères aux États-Généraux par rapport à la neutralité des Pays-Bas et au respect du droit des gens (1916) 144-145. |