U.S.A. DISPLEASED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLVIII, Issue 21558, 22 January 1940, Page 7

U.S.A. DISPLEASED

British Interference With Mails Danger Of Diplomatic Crisis Sharp Note Likely United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph —Copyright (Received January 21, 9.30 p.m.) WASHINGTON, January 20.

A serious diplomatic crisis between Britain and the United States threatens to grow out of the British rejection of the United States note protesting against the mail censorship.

The Australian Associated Press learns reliably that the State Department is most irritated at the British attitude regarding this and other questions. It warned Lord Lothian (British Ambassador) in the strongest terms of the United States’ dissatisfaction and a sharp note is likely to reject the British argument. Resentment arises not only from the stiffness of the tone of the British note justifying interference but also from the generally adamant British attitude to a number of disputed points, including commercial restrictions. United States exports and interference with United States shipping outside the war area. It is understood that Lord Lothian was invited to the State Department where he was informed of the official United States view and warned of the unfortunate effect of the British attitude on American public opinion. It is gathered that the State Department considers the situation at least potentially serious.

The Washington correspondent of the “New York Times” says it is feared that the irritation spreading is capable of disturbing the cordial relations between Britain and America. Officials are well aware that the British are fighting a war and operating a blockade, but find it lifficult to understand the reason for a number of actions merely annoying to the American public and not aiding Britain. It is felt that the British attitude is endangering the intense sympathy of most Americans towards Britain.

Edwin L. James, managing editor of the “New York Times,” says plainty a possibility exists of a diplomatic difference resembling a world war argument. It is difficult to see wh. t the British think they can gain by interference with United States mails. Could what is taken from mails destined for Germany compensate the British loss by irritation caused the United States? The world war saw a good deal of pro-German sentiment in the United States. In this war at least 80 per cent of the people are anti-Hitler. It would seem too valuable for Britain to risk modifying by searching United States mails on the high seas. Trade Restriction Mr Cordell Hull revealed that he was investigating the reported British discontinuance of the purchase of American tobacco and commerce restrictions generally and hinted that action was contemplated. The restrictions include the hitherto undisclosed British ban on United States shipments of lubricants to Norway, the holding of United States ships for a long period at Gibraltar and the inroads on American trade with Latin America. There is a feeling 'bat Bri • tain is buying from tie Argentine and Brazil far in excess of her needs and requirements to keep supplies .rom Germany and American trade is suffering difficulties unnecessarily. BRITISH REPLY TO AMERICA British Official Wireless (Received January 21, 6.30 p.m.) RUGBY, January 20. Britain’s reply to the United States Note of December 27 on the .subject of the examination by the British censorship authorities of certain United States mails has been communicated to the United States Charge d’Affaires in London. The reply states that substantial agreement exists between Britain and the United States regarding the rights of censorship of terminal mails and that the only point of difference seems to be in the interpretation of the Hague Convention regarding correspondence in ships diverted into British ports. Britain’s view on this point is that the immunity conferred by Article I of The Hague Convention, which anyway does not cover postal parcels, is enjoyed only by genuine postal correspondence and a belligerent has therefore the rigx o examine mail bags to assure himself of the genuineness of their contents. Britain regards this view established by the precedent of the last war when rcnc of the belligerents accepted the view that the Hague Convention absolutely prohibited the censorship of mail bags and the right of the search was regarded as including full examination of mail. The United States in Rl6 admitted in principle this right. The reply also points out that the letter as well as the parcel post can be used to convey contraband such as money orders, cheques, securities, etcetera, and that even though addressed to neutral countries their ultimate destination may be Germany.” Contraband in Parcels

In connection with the mention which is made in the British reply to the United States concerning the examination of neutral mail of evidence of organised contraband traffic between German sympathisers in the United States and Germany, there is conclusive evidence that in this as in the last war an extensive use is being made by Germany of neutral postal facilities for the furtherance of her war effort. This traffic is not merely the outcome of isolated individual acts of generosity. It is a systematically planned attempt for which the German Government may be presumed, either directly or indirectly, responsible to evade the contraband control. Evidence of this is found not only in the impersonal character of the parcels, hardly one of which contains a letter, and in the fact that contraband from various senders is being despatched to one addressee but also in the appearance in various neutral newspapers of advertisements printed in the German language advising Germans or German sympathisers how best to send contraband material to Germany through the post. This recalls such incidents of the last war as the discovery of 400 revolvers in 69 separate parcels consigned to Germany on a neutral packet boat. The extent of this traffic in contraband can be gauged from the fact that in mail coming from one neutral country alone over a period of eight days it was found that 86 per cent of the parceels opened contained contraband. In one day 220 parcels selected at random for opening all contained contraband.