Various - "Georgian Poetry 1920 22"

Mary Antin - "From Plotzk to Boston"

George Washington Cable - "The Cavalier"

Edmund B. Tuttle - "Three Years on the Plains"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Current History, A Monthly Magazine

N >> New York Times >> Current History, A Monthly Magazine




By William J. Bryan, American Secretary of State

By agreement between the Governments of the United States
and Great Britain the text of the American note, printed
below, setting forth the views of this Government in
opposition to British interference with American trade, was
made public in Washington on Dec. 31, 1914, and
simultaneously in London. At the same time copies of the
American communication were for the first time delivered to
the Ambassadors and Ministers of all the powers at
Washington, and the note was cabled by them to their
respective Governments. The American communication--it is
not a note, strictly speaking, because all notes are sent by
mail in diplomacy and never by telegraph--sets forth clearly
the conditions of which the American Government and people
complain resulting from the frequent seizures and detentions
by the British of American cargoes destined to neutral
European ports.


_The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador at London._

Department of State,
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26, 1914.

The present condition of American foreign trade resulting from the
frequent seizures and detentions of American cargoes destined to
neutral European ports has become so serious as to require a candid
statement of the views of this Government in order that the British
Government may be fully informed as to the attitude of the United
States toward the policy which has been pursued by the British
authorities during the present war.

You will therefore communicate the following to his Majesty's
principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but in doing so you
will assure him that it is done in the most friendly spirit and in the
belief that frankness will better serve the continuance of cordial
relations between the two countries than silence, which may be
misconstrued into acquiescence in a course of conduct which this
Government cannot but consider to be an infringement upon the rights
of American citizens.

The Government of the United States has viewed with growing concern
the large number of vessels laden with American goods destined to
neutral ports in Europe which have been seized on the high seas, taken
into British ports, and detained sometimes for weeks by the British
authorities. During the early days of the war this Government assumed
that the policy adopted by the British Government was due to the
unexpected outbreak of hostilities and the necessity of immediate
action to prevent contraband from reaching the enemy.

For this reason it was not disposed to judge this policy harshly, or
protest it vigorously, although it was manifestly very injurious to
American trade with the neutral countries of Europe. This Government,
relying confidently upon the high regard which Great Britain has so
often exhibited in the past for the rights of other nations,
confidently awaited amendment of a course of action which denied to
neutral commerce the freedom to which it was entitled by the law of
nations.

[Illustration: COUNT LADISLAUS STADNICKI

Founder of the Polish Legion of the German Army.

(_Photo from Engelbrecht._)]

[Illustration: GENERAL VON KROBATKIN

Chief of the Austrian General Staff.

(_Photo from Paul Thompson._)]

This expectation seemed to be rendered the more assured by the
statement of the Foreign Office early in November that the British
Government was satisfied with guarantees offered by the Norwegian,
Swedish, and Danish Governments as to non-exportation of contraband
goods when consigned to named persons in the territories of those
Governments, and that orders had been given to the British fleet and
customs authorities to restrict interference with neutral vessels
carrying such cargoes so consigned to verification of ship's papers
and cargoes.

It is therefore a matter of deep regret that, though nearly five
months have passed since the war began, the British Government has not
materially changed its policy and do not treat less rigorously ships
and cargoes passing between neutral ports in the peaceful pursuit of
lawful commerce, which belligerents should protect rather than
interrupt. The greater freedom from detention and seizure which was
confidently expected to result from consigning shipments to definite
consignees rather than "to order" is still awaited.

It is needless to point out to his Majesty's Government, usually the
champion of the freedom of the seas and the rights of trade, that
peace, not war, is the normal relation between nations and that the
commerce between countries which are not belligerents should not be
interfered with by those at war unless such interference is manifestly
an imperative necessity to protect their national safety, and then
only to the extent that it is a necessity.

It is with no lack of appreciation of the momentous nature of the
present struggle in which Great Britain is engaged and with no selfish
desire to gain undue commercial advantage that this Government is
reluctantly forced to the conclusion that the present policy of his
Majesty's Government toward neutral ships and cargoes exceeds the
manifest necessity of a belligerent and constitutes restrictions upon
the rights of American citizens on the high seas which are not
justified by the rules of international law or required under the
principle of self-preservation.

The Government of the United States does not intend at this time to
discuss the propriety of including certain articles in the lists of
absolute and conditional contraband which have been proclaimed by his
Majesty. Open to objection as some of these seem to this Government,
the chief ground of present complaint is the treatment of cargoes of
both classes of articles when bound to neutral ports.

Articles listed as absolute contraband, shipped from the United States
and consigned to neutral countries, have been seized and detained on
the ground that the countries to which they were destined have not
prohibited the exportation of such articles. Unwarranted as such
detentions are, in the opinion of this Government, American exporters
are further perplexed by the apparent indecision of the British
authorities in applying their own rules to neutral cargoes.

For example, a shipment of copper from this country to a specified
consignee in Sweden was detained because, as was stated by Great
Britain, Sweden had placed no embargo on copper. On the other hand,
Italy not only prohibited the export of copper, but, as this
Government is informed, put in force a decree that shipments to
Italian consignees or "to order" which arrive in ports of Italy cannot
be exported or transshipped. The only exception Italy makes is of
copper which passes through that country in transit to another
country. In spite of these decrees, however, the British Foreign
Office has thus far declined to affirm that copper shipments consigned
to Italy will not be molested on the high seas. Seizures are so
numerous and delays so prolonged that exporters are afraid to send
their copper to Italy, steamship lines decline to accept it, and
insurers refuse to issue policies upon it. In a word, a legitimate
trade is being greatly impaired through uncertainty as to the
treatment which we may expect at the hands of the British authorities.

We feel that we are abundantly justified in asking for information as
to the manner in which the British Government propose to carry out the
policy which they have adopted in order that we may determine the
steps necessary to protect our citizens engaged in foreign trade in
their rights and from the serious losses to which they are liable
through ignorance of the hazards to which their cargoes are exposed.

In the case of conditional contraband, the policy of Great Britain
appears to this Government to be equally unjustified by the
established rules of international conduct. As evidence of this,
attention is directed to the fact that a number of the American
cargoes which have been seized consist of foodstuffs and other
articles of common use in all countries which are admittedly relative
contraband. In spite of the presumption of innocent use because
destined to neutral territory, the British authorities made these
seizures and detentions without, so far as we are informed, being in
possession of facts which warranted a reasonable belief that the
shipments had in realty a belligerent destination, as that term is
used in international law.

Mere suspicion is not evidence, and doubts should be resolved in favor
of neutral commerce, not against it. The effect upon trade in these
articles between neutral nations resulting from interrupted voyages
and detained cargoes is not entirely cured by reimbursement of the
owners for the damages which they have suffered, after investigation
has failed to establish an enemy destination. The injury is to
American commerce with neutral countries as a whole through the hazard
of the enterprise and the repeated diversion of goods from
establishing markets.

It also appears that cargoes of this character have been seized by the
British authorities because of a belief that, though not originally so
intended by the shippers, they will ultimately reach the territory of
the enemies of Great Britain. Yet this belief is frequently reduced to
a mere fear in view of the embargoes which have been decreed by the
neutral countries to which they are destined on the articles composing
the cargoes.

That a consignment "to order" of articles listed as conditional
contraband and shipped to a neutral port raises a legal presumption of
enemy destination appears to be directly contrary to the doctrines
previously held by Great Britain and thus stated by Lord Salisbury
during the South African war:

"Foodstuffs, though having a hostile destination, can be considered as
contraband of war only if they are for the enemy forces; it is not
sufficient that they are capable of being so used, it must be shown
that this was in fact their destination at the time of their seizure."

With this statement as to conditional contraband the views of this
Government are in entire accord, and upon this historic doctrine,
consistently maintained by Great Britain when a belligerent as well as
a neutral, American shippers were entitled to rely.

The Government of the United States readily admits the full right of a
belligerent to visit and search on the high seas the vessels of
American citizens or other neutral vessels carrying American goods and
to detain them WHEN THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY A BELIEF
THAT CONTRABAND ARTICLES ARE IN THEIR CARGOES; but his Majesty's
Government, judging by their own experience in the past, must realize
that this Government cannot without protest permit American ships or
American cargoes to be taken into British ports and there detained for
the purpose of searching generally for evidence of contraband or upon
presumptions created by special municipal enactments which are clearly
at variance with international law and practice.

This Government believes and earnestly hopes his Majesty's Government
will come to the same belief, that a course of conduct more in
conformity with the rules of international usage, which Great Britain
has strongly sanctioned for many years, will in the end better serve
the interests of belligerents as well as those of neutrals.

Not only is the situation a critical one to the commercial interests
of the United States, but many of the great industries of this country
are suffering because their products are denied long-established
markets in European countries, which, though neutral, are contiguous
to the nations at war. Producers and exporters, steamship and
insurance companies, are pressing, and not without reason, for relief
from the menace to transatlantic trade which is gradually but surely
destroying their business and threatening them with financial
disaster.

The Government of the United States, still relying upon the deep sense
of justice of the British Nation, which has been so often manifested
in the intercourse between the two countries during so many years of
uninterrupted friendship, expresses confidently the hope that his
Majesty's Government will realize the obstacles and difficulties which
their present policy has placed in the way of commerce between the
United States and the neutral countries of Europe and will instruct
its officials to refrain from all unnecessary interference with the
freedom of trade between nations which are sufferers, though not
participants, in the present conflict; and will in their treatment of
neutral ships and cargoes conform more closely to those rules
governing the maritime relations between belligerents and neutrals
which have received the sanction of the civilized world and in which
Great Britain has in other wars so strongly and successfully
advocated.

In conclusion, it should be impressed upon his Majesty's Government
that the present condition of American trade with the neutral European
countries is such that, if it does not improve, it may arouse a
feeling contrary to that which has so long existed between the
American and British people. Already it is becoming more and more the
subject of public criticism and complaint. There is an increasing
belief, doubtless not entirely unjustified, that the present British
policy toward American trade is responsible for the depression in
certain industries which depend upon European markets. The attention
of the British Government is called to this possible result of their
present policy, to show how widespread the effect is upon the
industrial life of the United States and to emphasize the importance
of removing the cause of complaint.

WILLIAM J. BRYAN,
Secretary of State.




GERMAN CROWN PRINCE TO AMERICA

[By The Associated Press.]


Geneva, (via Paris,) Jan. 29.--Crown Prince Frederick William of
Germany has sent to the local correspondent of The Associated Press,
in response to a request for a statement on the war, the following
reply, dated near Verdun, Jan. 22:

"You ask me to send a message to the American people. Being an officer
and no diplomat, I have no right to do so, but if you like I will tell
you three things:

"First--Every single German and Austrian is quite certain that we will
come out on top, and will give his last drop of blood to this end.

"Second--We are convinced that the day will come when the people of
Russia and France will find out that they are only doing the dirty
work for England.

"Third--We expect from America absolutely fair play in all questions.

"These are my personal ideas, but a good many of my countrymen feel
the same. Greetings.

"WILHELM, Kronprinz."




The Official British Explanation

By Sir Edward Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great
Britain

The State Department in Washington and the Foreign Office in
London, by agreement, made public simultaneously on Jan. 10,
1915, the British reply to the American protest against the
undue detention of American ships and cargoes seized for
search for contraband. The answer, signed by Sir Edward
Grey, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
was addressed to Walter Hines Page, the American Ambassador
in London, who cabled it to Washington on Jan. 7. The note
is preliminary, and was to be followed by a more detailed
reply.


_The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American
Ambassador._

FOREIGN OFFICE, Jan. 7, 1915.

Your Excellency: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note
of the 28th of December. It is being carefully examined and the points
raised in it are receiving consideration, as the result of which a
reply shall be addressed to your Excellency dealing in detail with the
issues raised and the points to which the United States Government
have drawn attention. This consideration and the preparation of the
reply will necessarily require some time, and I therefore desire to
send without further delay some preliminary observations which will, I
trust, help to clear the ground and remove some misconceptions that
seem to exist.

Let me say at once that we entirely recognize the most friendly spirit
referred to by your Excellency and that we desire to reply in the same
spirit and in the belief that, as your Excellency states, frankness
will best serve the continuance of cordial relations between the two
countries.

His Majesty's Government cordially concur in the principle enunciated
by the Government of the United States that a belligerent, in dealing
with trade between neutrals, should not interfere unless such
interference is necessary to protect the belligerent's national
safety, and then only to the extent to which this is necessary. We
shall endeavor to keep our action within the limits of this principle
on the understanding that it admits our right to interfere when such
interference is not with "bona-fide" trade between the United States
and another neutral country, but with trade in contraband destined for
the enemy's country; and we are ready, whenever our action may
unintentionally exceed this principle, to make redress.

We think that much misconception exists as to the extent to which we
have, in practice, interfered with trade. Your Excellency's note seems
to hold his Majesty's Government responsible for the present condition
of trade with neutral countries, and it is stated that, through the
action of his Majesty's Government, the products of the great
industries of the United States have been denied long-established
markets in European countries which, though neutral, are contiguous to
the seat of war. Such a result is far from being the intention of his
Majesty's Government, and they would exceedingly regret that it should
be due to their action.

I have been unable to obtain complete or conclusive figures showing
what the state of trade with these neutral countries has been
recently, and I can, therefore, only ask that some further
consideration should be given to the question whether United States
trade with these neutral countries has been so seriously affected. The
only figures as to the total volume of trade that I have seen are
those for the exports from New York for the month of November, 1914,
and they are as follows, compared with the month of November, 1913:

Exports from New York for November, 1913, and November, 1914,
respectively: Denmark, $558,000, $7,101,000; Sweden, $377,000,
$2,858,000; Norway, $477,000, $2,318,000; Italy, $2,971,000,
$4,781,000; Holland, $4,389,000, $3,960,000.

It is true that there may have been a falling off in cotton exports,
as to which New York figures would be no guide, but his Majesty's
Government have been most careful not to interfere with cotton, and
its place on the free list has been scrupulously maintained.

We do not wish to lay too much stress upon incomplete statistics; the
figures above are not put forward as conclusive, and we are prepared
to examine any further evidence with regard to the state of trade with
these neutral countries, which may point to a different conclusion or
show that it is the action of his Majesty's Government in particular
and not the existence of a state of war and consequent diminution of
purchasing power and shrinkage of trade, which is responsible for
adverse effects upon trade with the neutral countries.

That the existence of a state of war on such a scale has had a very
adverse effect upon certain great industries, such as cotton, is
obvious, but it is submitted that this is due to the general cause of
diminished purchasing power of such countries as France, Germany, and
the United Kingdom rather than to interference with trade with neutral
countries. In the matter of cotton it may be recalled that the British
Government gave special assistance through the Liverpool Cotton
Exchange to the renewal of transactions in the cotton trade of not
only the United Kingdom, but of many neutral countries.

Your Excellency's note refers in particular to the detention of
copper. The figures taken from official returns for the export of
copper from the United States for Italy for the months during which
the war has been in progress up to the end of the first three weeks of
December are as follows:

1913--Fifteen million two hundred and two thousand pounds.

1914--Thirty-six million two hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland are not shown separately for
the whole period in the United States returns, but are included in the
heading "Other Europe"; that is, Europe other than the United Kingdom,
Russia, France, Belgium, Austria, Germany, Holland, and Italy. The
corresponding figures under this heading are as follows:

1913--Seven million two hundred and seventy-one thousand pounds.

1914--Thirty-five million three hundred and forty-seven thousand
pounds.

With such figures the presumption is very strong that the bulk of
copper consigned to these countries has recently been intended not for
their own use, but for that of a belligerent who cannot import it
direct. It is therefore an imperative necessity for the safety of this
country while it is at war that his Majesty's Government should do all
in its power to stop such part of this import of copper as is not
genuinely destined for neutral countries.

Your Excellency does not quote any particular shipment of copper to
Sweden which has been detained. There are, however, four consignments
to Sweden at the present time of copper and aluminium which, though
definitely consigned to Sweden, are, according to positive evidence in
the possession of his Majesty's Government, definitely destined for
Germany.

I cannot believe that, with such figures before them and in such cases
as those just mentioned, the Government of the United States would
question the propriety of the action of his Majesty's Government in
taking suspected cargoes to a prize court, and we are convinced that
it cannot be in accord with the wish either of the Government or of
the people of the United States to strain the international code in
favor of private interests so as to prevent Great Britain from taking
such legitimate means for this purpose as are in her power.

With regard to the seizure of foodstuffs, to which your Excellency
refers, his Majesty's Government are prepared to admit that foodstuffs
should not be detained and put into a prize court without the
presumption that they are intended for the armed forces of the enemy
or the enemy Government. We believe that this rule has been adhered to
in practice hitherto, but if the United States Government have
instances to the contrary we are prepared to examine them, and it is
our present intention to adhere to the rule, though we cannot give an
unlimited and unconditional undertaking, in view of the departure by
those against whom we are fighting from hitherto accepted rules of
civilization and humanity and the uncertainty as to the extent to
which such rules may be violated by them in future.

From the 4th of August last to the 3d of January the number of
steamships proceeding from the United States for Holland, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, and Italy has been 773. Of these there are 45 which
have had consignments of cargoes placed in the prize court, while of
the ships themselves only eight have been placed in the prize court,
and one of these has since been released.

It is, however, essential under modern conditions that where there is
real ground for suspecting the presence of contraband the vessel
should be brought into port for examination. In no other way can the
right of search be exercised, and but for this practice it would have
to be completely abandoned.

Information was received by us that special instructions had been
given to ship rubber from the United States under another designation
to escape notice, and such cases have occurred in several instances.
Only by search in a port can such cases, when suspected, be discovered
and proved.

The necessity for examination in a port may also be illustrated by a
hypothetical instance connected with cotton, which has not yet
occurred. Cotton is not specifically mentioned in your Excellency's
note, but I have seen public statements made in the United States that
the attitude of his Majesty's Government with regard to cotton has
been ambiguous and thereby responsible for depression in the cotton
trade.

There has never been any foundation for this allegation. His Majesty's
Government have never put cotton on the list of contraband; they have
throughout the war kept it on the free list, and on every occasion
when questioned on the point they have stated their intention of
adhering to this practice. But information has reached us that,
precisely because we have declared our intention of not interfering
with cotton, ships carrying cotton will be specially selected to carry
concealed contraband, and we have been warned that copper will be
concealed in bales of cotton.

Whatever suspicions we have entertained we have not so far made these
a ground for detaining any ship carrying cotton, but should we have
information giving us real reason to believe in the case of a
particular ship that the bales of cotton concealed copper or other
contraband the only way to prove our case would be to examine and
weigh the bales, a process that could be carried out only by bringing
the vessel into a port. In such a case, if examination justifies the
action of his Majesty's Government, the case shall be brought before a
prize court and dealt with in the ordinary way.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.