FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   >>   >|  
matters. In order that you may have such information as the department has on the subjects referred to in your letter, I will take them up seriatim. _(1) Freedom of communication by submarine cables versus censored communication by wireless._ The reason that wireless messages and cable messages require different treatment by a neutral Government is as follows: Communication by wireless cannot be interrupted by a belligerent. With a submarine cable it is otherwise. The possibility of cutting the cable exists, and if a belligerent possesses naval superiority the cable is cut, as was the German cable near the Azores by one of Germany's enemies, and as was the British cable near Fanning Island by a German naval force. Since a cable is subject to hostile attack, the responsibility falls upon the belligerent, and not upon the neutral, to prevent cable communication. A more important reason, however, at least from the point of view of a neutral Government, is that messages sent out from a wireless station in neutral territory may be received by belligerent warships on the high seas. If these messages, whether plain or in cipher, direct the movements of warships or convey to them information as to the location of an enemy's public or private vessels, the neutral territory becomes a base of naval operations, to permit which would be essentially unneutral. As a wireless message can be received by all stations and vessels within a given radius, every message in cipher, whatever its intended destination, must be censored, otherwise military information may be sent to warships off the coast of a neutral. It is manifest that a submarine cable is incapable of becoming a means of direct communication with a warship on the high seas; hence its use cannot, as a rule, make neutral territory a base for the direction of naval operations. _(2) Censorship of mails and in some cases repeated destruction of American letters on neutral vessels._ As to the censorship of mails, Germany, as well as Great Britain, has pursued this course in regard to private letters falling into their hands. The unquestioned right to adopt a measure of this sort makes objection to it inadvisable. It has been asserted that American mail on board of Dutch steamers has been repeatedly destroyed. No evidence to this effect has been filed with the Government, and therefore no representations have been made. Until such a case is presented in concrete
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

neutral

 

wireless

 

belligerent

 

messages

 
communication
 

warships

 

territory

 
Government
 

submarine

 
vessels

information

 
Germany
 

German

 

message

 
letters
 

American

 

operations

 

received

 

cipher

 

direct


private

 

censored

 

reason

 
Censorship
 

direction

 

repeated

 
Britain
 

censorship

 

destruction

 

destination


military

 

intended

 

subjects

 

warship

 
incapable
 

department

 
manifest
 

evidence

 

effect

 
destroyed

repeatedly

 

steamers

 
presented
 

concrete

 
representations
 

asserted

 
falling
 
regard
 

radius

 
unquestioned