ned 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, s