¦I_
Armed Merchantment 1421/ 9 759
No. 1880.
BRITISH EMBASSY,
WASHINGTON D.C. ,
November 3rd, 1939*
My Lord,
Your Lordship will recollect that In
accordance with the instructions contained in your
telegram No. 418 of August 86th, Sir Ronald Lindsay
informed the State Department unofficially on that
day that Hie Majesty's Government had decided to
begin the defensive arming of certain British merchant
vessels.    As reported in my predecessor's telegram No*
579 of August 27th, the matter was referred to the
President and the State Department subsequently informed
the Embassy privately that no difficulties were likely
to be experienced by British merchant ships carrying
such armament entering United States ports*
So Since that time many British merchant ships
have   arrived In this country from Europe earring one
or two guns and in certain cases one or two anti-aircraft
guns as well, and as far as I am aware no difficulties
have been experienced.     The press as was to be
expected at first commented on the arming of these
ships and published photographs of their guns but there
was little or no tendency on the part of the papers to
criticise the decision of His Majesty's Government to
arm these vessels*
S« In the early days of the war some of the
British shipping agents in Hew York were nervous lest
ships/
The Right Honourable VALM:FRHM:NT
The Viscount Halifax, K. O.,
I etc.,      etc., etc.
3
ships armed with anti-aircraft guns might experience
some difficulties and it was suggested that some steps
should he taken to obtain a definite statement from
the American authorities regarding their attitude In
the matter.   I thought it unnecessary however to take
such aotion in view of the assurances already given
by the State Department and felt that it would he
mwi^te to endeavour to pin them down to any definite
official statement of policy on the question* X
therefore decided not to approach the State Department
again and as indicated above no difficulties have
as yet arisen in connexion with the entry of such
defenalvely armed merchant men into American porta*
Furthermore as reported in my telegram No* 640 of
October 19th, the President when issuing his proclama-
tion under section 8 of the Neutrality Act prohibiting
submarines of belligerents from using United States
ports, refrained from exercising his power similarly
to exclude armed merchant vessels*   I1j was Indeed
proposed during the debate on the revised Neutrality
Bill in the Senate that a provision be inserted
insisting on armed merchant men visiting United States
ports being treated as if they were warships. This
amendment was however defeated on October 27th by 65
votes to 86*
4* On the other hand, you will have noticed
from my despatch No* 1189 of October 6th that paragraph
(j) of the Fifth Recommendation (General Declaration of
Neutrality of the American Republics) of the Panama
Conference runs as follows!•
"(J)   Shall not assimilate to warships
belligerent/
i
"belligerent armed merchant vessels if they do not
carry sore than four six-inch guns mounted on the stern,
and their lateral decks are not reinforced, and if,
in the Judgement of the local authorities, there do
not exist other circumstancee which reveal that the
merchant vessels ean be used for offensive purposes*
They Bay require of the said vessels, in order to enter
their ports, to deposit explosives and munitions
in such places as the local authorities may determine.*
5* In his conversation with me on October 18th
Mr* Welles told me that as he interpreted this
resolution anti-aircraft guns mounted on merchant ships
would be treated as defensive armament — see my telegram
Bo* 636 of October 18th•    The Under secretary of
State also however explained, contrary to my expectation*
that the resolutions of the Panama Conference were to
be regarded not as made *ad referendum1* bat as being
operative *in so far as their text implied it**.
6* In view of Mr* Welles1 remarks I thought it
advisable to enquire unofficially of the state Department
as to their intentions in the matter.
7. The Counsellor of His   . Ua)festy's Embassy
therefore saw Mr* Moffat, the head of the European
Division, on October 84th and enquired whether in view
of the Panama resolution any change in the attitude
of the State Department in the natter of armed merchant
men was to be expected*   In particular Ur« Mallet asked
whether if the United states authorities deoided to
act on the Panama resolution they would   interpret this
as allowing merchant vessels to carry anti-aircraft
guns in addition to the 4 6-inch guns, and as permitting
the decks of the ships to be strengthened sufficiently
to/
5
-4-
to enable to carry the four guns and whether one or
more of the four guns permitted eould be mounted on the
bows or whether they oust all be in the stern* Mr*
Mallet pointed out that it would only be fair that we
should be informed beforehand if objection was about to
be taken by the United States authorities to what had
indeed seeinedto be becoming our current practice in
the case of certain ships*
So Ur* Moffat promised to look into the matter*
He has now sent an oral message that unless Congress at
any time took some action in the matter - which seems
very unlikely at the present moment - he did not
anticipate any executive action at any rate yet awhile*
He could naturally not make any promises but he felt
at least able to undertake that if he heard that any
action was contemplated he would try to let the Embassy
have fair warning so as to avoid any embarrassment
in respect of ships already at sea*
I have the honour to be,
with the highest respect*
My Lord,
Your Lordship*s most obedient,
humble servant*
(SGD) LOTHIAN