THE WORLD WAR: PERIOD OF AMERICAN NEUTRALITY 265



a neutral. Can G. B. cite a single case of this sort? She has not
done so thus far in spite of the scores of vessels and cargoes detained.
  Paragraph 21. The United States should accept the statement
that G. B. had no ground to complain of the abandonment of en-
tirely unauthorized publication of manifests and the adoption of a
rule that they should not be given general publicity by officials for
thirty days. Attention might be called to the fact that another cus-
tom was also abandoned, which was that a full manifest did not
have to be filed for four days after the vessel sailed. In order to
prevent the shipment of coal and supplies to belligerent warships
clearance was refused by order of the Treasury Department until
the full manifest was filed.
  So far as knowledge of the contents of a manifest serves to re-
move a danger of detention in a British port the claim is without
foundation. The vessels which are stopped on the high seas by
British warships have their manifests. These can be easily examined
at the time of visit. If they are without evidence of unneutral
trade, the vessels should be allowed to proceed. As to such visit
and detention on the high seas the United States has no ground
for complaint. But it does not appear that G. B. is satisfied with
the facts set forth in a manifest, actual search must verify them,
and this, acccording to British practice, takes place in port and
not on the high seas. How then does knowledge of the contents
of a manifest prevent detentions since the accuracy of the manifest
is always apparently doubted?
  If a vessel was immune from interruption provided her mani-
fest showed no goods with enemy destination there might be some
reason for giving publicity to the manifest at the time of clearing,
but, since it does not, it in no way benefits American shippers to
publish it, while for trade reasons many seriously object to such
publication.
  Paragraph 22. The experience of this Government thus far has
been that the reasons for many of the detentions have not been
promptly attainable. A change in this particular, in accordance
with the promise here made, would remove some of the grounds for
complaint which exist. The U. S. has sought in vain in many cases
for a statement of the reason for detention. Such a situation cannot
but cause irritation and arouse suspicion that the vessel or cargo
is held until arrangements have been made with the government of
the neutral country to the port of which it is destined. If such a
suspicion is justified the detention is manifestly illegal and a proper
ground for protest.