its navigation, as bunker oil and bunker coal or screws and other parts of the engine, compasses, etc., must in this respect be deemed to constitute parts of the ship itself. The detention of the bunker fuel would, indeed, seem no more justifiable than, for instance, an export prohibition of sails, if applied to sails carried by a ship calling at a port where such a prohibition were in force. I trust that you will concur with the opinion of my Government that such a regulation, depriving the ship of the means of navigation already at its disposal, would be wholly in acceptable.

Quite apart from this question-whether the ships as such were detained in violation of the rules laid down in Article 17 of the treaty aforementioned this must, anyway, be held to have been the case with the commodities carried by the vessels. You will not fail to observe that the vessels in question, both carrying bunker fuel for their own use, and the "Pacific" moreover a cargo of nitrate, arrived at American east-coast ports already on June 23, 1917, and July 1, 1917, respectively, whereas the first proclamation forbidding the export of oil and nitrate was issued on July 9, 1917. In these circumstances and on the strength of the clause aforementioned, the Swedish Government feels entitled to claim that these export-proclamations ought not to have prohibited the re-export of Swedish property carried on board Swedish vessels which had entered American ports before the issuing of these regulations.

This opinion of my Government seems to be in close accordance with the views expressed by the Government of the United States in a similar case, referred to in "A Digest of International Law," Volume VI, Par. 1035, (particularly pages 910-912), by Mr. J. B. Moore, the renowned American lawyer. My Government has observed that in the case quoted, your Government claimed-on the strength of an international clause almost identical with Art. 17 in the Swedish-American treaty and concluded during the same period as the treaty just mentioned

the exemption from an export-prohibition issued in a foreign country of all goods which, prior to the date of the going into effect of this prohibition, were the actual property of American citizens.

Admitting this construction of the word "detention," the prohibition of the re-export of the commodities carried by the Swedish vessels now in question seems not to have been justified. Whereas, on the other hand, it has furthermore been confirmed by Mr. Lansing in his letter of June 26, 1918, that the fact that these vessels were not permitted to leave the United States was entirely due to the prescriptions regarding the export of the fuel carried-and thus in no way based on any legal regulations forbidding the clearance of the ships as such-the arguments now laid before you would seem sufficient to prove that the detention of the ships was scarcely in conformity with the treaties aforementioned.

This opinion seems, however, to be strongly supported by certain other articles of the same Treaty of 1783, viz., Articles 7-10, which seem to have a most important bearing upon this matter. These articles guarantee to the subjects and inhabitants of both countries complete freedom to navigate with their vessels either in time of peace or war, without regard to those to whom the cargo may belong, from any port whatever, and to sail and trade with their vessels and to carry on commerce not only directly from ports of an enemy of either country to neutral ports but between enemy ports. This liberty of navigation extends to all merchandises, except those expressly listed in article 9 and article 10 as contraband.

Neither the cargo of the "Pacific" nor the bunker oil carried by both vessels is listed as contraband. Indeed, by Article 10, oil is expressly excluded from the list of prohibited goods.

In this connection I beg to draw your attention, first, to the letter of the War Trade Board, dated November 1, 1917, appearing as annex V (e) of the claim. By this letter an export license for the cargo of the "Pacific" was

unconditionally denied because, it was stated, no licenses were being granted at that time for export to certain countries, including Sweden. Quite apart from the question as to whether such action constituted an embargo or detention of the vessel and its cargo, you will not fail to observe that by this action the "Pacific" was not accorded that freedom of navigation with its cargo which is specified in Article 7 of the Treaty of 1783.

I also beg to direct your attention to the situation common to both vessels. The vessels were refused permission to depart in ballast. The reason for the refusal was the necessity of obtaining an export license for the bunker oil brought into American waters by the ships. The reason for the refusal of the export license was (1) that the voy.. ages to Sweden were not approved by the War Trade Board, and (2) that the owner would not enter into an agreement affecting all its vessels and greatly limiting their freedom of navigation and commerce. You will note that in order to obtain the necessary permission for the vessels to depart from American waters, the owner was required to give up the rights secured to him by Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Treaty of 1783, not only as to the particular vessels in American waters, by abandoning the voyage to Sweden and undertaking a voyage approved by the War Trade Board, but as to all his vessels, wherever situated. The owner being unwilling to surrender these rights, the vessels were detained by force in ports of the United States.

It is unnecessary to point out in view of your great experience in the construction of legal documents, that, as the Supreme Court of the United States of America has said, such documents are not to be construed so as to be self-destructive. The treaty can hardly contemplate that, as a condition to the exercise of any one right granted therein, either contracting party may require the waiver of any other right granted. It is, therefore, the view of my Government-in which I venture to trust that you will concur that the detention of a vessel, or of the commodi

ties carried by such a vessel, of either contracting party in a port of the other, forbidden by Article 17 of the SwedishAmerican Treaty, cannot be justified on the ground that the detention might have been terminated, had the owner agreed to waive rights guaranteed by Article 7.

I, therefore, submit the claim for compensation for loss and damage arising from the detention of the vessels referred to, in the belief that you will find it founded upon the principles of law and equity.

Awaiting your views upon this matter, and with renewed assurances of my highest consideration, I have the honour to remain, Sir,

EXHIBIT E-2

(Enclosure in Exhibit E-1)

CLAIM OF THE ROYAL SWEDISH GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON BEHALF OF

REDERIAKTIEBOLAGET NORDSTJERNAN

ARISING OUT OF THE DETENTION BY THE UNITED STATES OF THE SWEDISH MOTOR SHIPS

"KRONPRINS GUSTAF ADOLF" AND "PACIFIC"

I. The Rederiaktiebolaget Nordstjernan is and was at all times mentioned herein a Swedish corporation and the owner of the Motor Ships "Kronprins Gustaf Adolf" and "Pacific." See Annex I and Annex II [this print, p. 260].

II. The "Kronprins Gustaf Adolf" and the "Pacific" were at all times mentioned herein motor ships of Swedish registry, and were each of 7,186 tons deadweight capacity. Both vessels use and used oil fuel. See Annex II [this print, p. 260].

III. On June 23, 1917, the "Kronprins Gustaf Adolf" arrived in New York from Sweden via Halifax to load a cargo of sugar for Finland. On arrival, the vessel had on board 347.25 tons of fuel oil. On November 24, 1917, the vessel had in its bunkers 338 tons of fuel oil. The voyage from New York to Sweden, via Kirkwall, could have been made by the vessel with not exceeding 165 tons of fuel oil. IV. On July 1, 1917, the M/S "Pacific" touched at Newport News bound from Chile to Malmoe and Helsinborg with a cargo of nitrates, the property of the Swedish