No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
American Participation in Belligerent Commercial Controls 1914-1917
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
Extract
Even before most of the world was embroiled, the war of 1914 was a world war. Those countries which attempted at the outset to remain aloof from the conflict soon found that, while they might avoid military hostilities, they became parties, whether willing or not, to an economic war, a struggle scarcely less destructive than that which raged on the battlefield. National leaders might will the division of Europe into separate political or military units, but to break the economic ties which linked the warring countries to each other was an infinitely harder task. The truism that the world is economically interdependent, so blandly reiterated today, became grimly apparent in 1914. The demands of war could not be met without the continued exchange of commodities; no country was capable, by itself, of feeding and clothing its population and of supplying its fighting forces with arms and munitions. With the markets of Europe barricaded by belligerent lines, thus cutting off from both sides normal sources of large supplies, the neutral states became factors of immense importance. The war could not go on without the neutral merchant; each belligerent needed him, and a major objective of offense was to prevent the enemy from satisfying that need.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933
References
1 Ambassador Page to the Secretary of State, Oct. 15, 1914. U. S. Foreign Relations, 1914, Supplement, p. 248.
2 Amb. Page to Sec. of State, Oct. 20, 1914, U. S. For. Rel. 1914, Supp., p. 255.
3 Secretary Lansing to Amb. Page, Oct. 22, 1914, ibid., p. 257.
4 German Minister of Foreign Affairs to Amb. Gerard, Feb. 16, 1915. Diplomatic Correspondence between the United States and Belligerent Governments Relating to Neutral Rights and Commerce; reprinted in Special Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 9 (1915), p. 96. (Hereafter referred to as Special Supplement.)
5 Sec. of State to Amb. Page, Dec. 26, 1914, Spl. Supp., Vol. 9 (1915), p. 59.
6 Amb. Page to Sec. of State, Nov. 6, 1914, U. S. For. Rel. 1914, Supp., p. 423.
7 Mr. Dyke, Van American Minister to the Netherlands, to the Sec. of State, July 8,1915, U. S. For. Rel. 1915, Supp., p. 277 Google Scholar.
8 Parmelee, M. Blockade and Sea Power (1924), pp. 139-142 Google Scholar.
9 Min. Van Dyke to Sec. of State, July 8, 1915, U. S. For. Rel., 1915, Supp., p. 277.
10 Art. 16 was amended by the Second Assembly in 1921 in order to substitute the criterion of residence for that of nationality. In September, 1924, the Fifth Assembly adopted an amendment to replace the amendment voted by the Second Assembly, adding to the criterion of residence an optional clause which authorizes the Powers wishing to do so to decree an additional prohibition based on nationality. This amendment is now before the members of the League for ratification. (For discussion and text, see Records of the Fifth Assembly, pp. 178-180.)
11 11 These associations were as follows: National Association of Woolen Manufacturers, National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, American Association of Cotton Manufacturers, American Association of Woolen and Worsted Manufacturers. Later added (1917): Silk Association of America, Boston Wool Trade Association, Jute Trade, National Association of Finishers of Cotton Fabrics, American Dye Institute.
12 Textile Alliance to British Board of Trade, Feb. 10, 1915. (This, and all other documents relating to the Textile Alliance, are included in an affidavit made for the purpose of furnishing information to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, submitted by Coudert Bros., April 5, 1927; Docket No. 13182; Files of the Textile Alliance.)
13 Letter from the Board of Trade to the Textile Alliance, Feb. 15, 1915.
14 Textile Alliance Bulletin, No. 2, April 8, 1915.
15 Guarantee by Importer, files of the Textile Alliance.
16 Textile Alliance Bulletin, No. 3, June 21,1915, p. 3: “ The foreign cost shall be considered the total cost at the port of departure, including all charges, but not including prepaid freight and prepaid insurance, if any.”
17 The Custodian Bankers were: Kidder, Peabody & Co., Brown Bros. & Co., Lee Higginson & Co., and J. P. Morgan & Co.
18 Textile Alliance Bulletin, No. 2.
19 Parmelee, op. cit., pp. 92, 131.
20 Jessup, Phillip C. American Neutrality and International Police (1928), p. 42 Google Scholar.
21 2l Sec. of State to Amb. Page, July 26, 1916, Spl. Supp., Vol. 10 (1916), p. 148.
22 Textile Alliance Bulletin, No. 11, Nov. 5, 1915.
23 Report of the United States War Trade Board (1920), p. 80.
24 Textile Alliance Bulletin, No. 16, July 26, 1916.
25 25 Letter from Sec. of State Lansing to the Hamberger-Polhemus Co., July 28, 1916 (Files of the Textile Alliance).
26 British Sec. of State for Foreign Affairs to Amb. Page, Jan. 7, 1915, Spl. Supp., Vol. 9 (1915), p. 60.
27 War Trade Board Report, p. 80.
28 For. Rel. 1914, Supp., pp. 278 f., 283 f.
29 Ibid., p. 330. Also Clapp, Edwin J. Economic Aspects of the War (1915), p. 188 Google Scholar.
30 For. Rel. 1914, Supp., pp. 331-335.
31 Ibid., pp. 338-341.
32 Sec. of State to Amb. Page, Dec. 26, 1914, Spl. Supp., Vol. 9 (1915), p. 55.
33 Amb. Page to Sec. of State, Jan. 5, 1915, For. Rel. 1915, Supp., p. 182
34 Ibid., p. 304. Also, Clapp, op. cit., p. 188.
35 Clapp, op. cit., p. 283.
36 For. Rel. 1915, Supp., p. 184.
37 Clapp, op. cit., p. 324.
38 Amb. Page to Sec. of State, Nov. 9, 1914, For. Rel. 1914, Supp., p. 343.
39 Surface, F., The Grain Trade During the World War (1928), p. 29.
40 Ibid., p. 29 f.
41 U. S. War Trade Board Report, p. 79.
42 Parmelee, op. cit., p. 136.
43 War Trade Board Report, p. 79.
44 Ibid., p. 98.
45 Ibid., p. 11.