Count Von Buelow summarized the action of the German Government by saying:  “We demanded in the first place the release of the steamers....  In the second place we demanded the payment of compensation for the unjustified detention of our ships and for the losses incurred by the German subjects whose interests were involved....  Thirdly, we drew attention to the necessity for issuing instructions to the British Naval Commanders to molest no German merchantmen in places not in the vicinity of the seat of war, or at any rate, in places north of Aden....  Fourthly, we stated it to be highly desirable that the English Government should instruct their Commanders not to arrest steamers flying the German mail flag....  Fifthly, we proposed that all points in dispute should be submitted to arbitration....  Lastly, the English Government have given expression to their regret for what has occurred.  We cherish the hope that such regrettable incidents will not be repeated.  We trust that the English naval authorities will not again proceed without sufficient cause, in an unfriendly and precipitate manner against our ships."[37]

[Footnote 37:  Speech in Reichstag, Jan. 19, 1900.]

The Chancellor at the same time set forth certain general propositions as a tentative system of law to be operative in practice, a disregard of which in the opinion of the German Government would constitute a breach of international treaties and customs: 

(1) “Neutral merchant ships on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerent Powers ...are subject to the right of visit by the warships of the belligerent parties.”  It was pointed out that this was apart from the right of convoy, a question which did not arise in the cases under discussion.  The proposal was not intended to apply to waters which were too remote from the seat of war and a special agreement was advocated for mail ships.

“(2) The right of visit is to be exercised with as much consideration as possible and without undue molestation.

“(3) The procedure in visiting a vessel consists of two or three acts according to the circumstances of each case; stopping the ship, examining her papers, and searching her.  The two first acts may be undertaken at any time, and without preliminary proceeding.  If the neutral vessel resists the order to stop, or if irregularities are discovered in her papers, or if the presence of contraband is revealed, then the belligerent vessel may capture the neutral, in order that the case may be investigated and decided upon by a competent Prize Court.

“(4) By the term ‘contraband of war’ only such articles or persons are to be understood as are suited for war and at the same time are destined for one of the belligerents.”  “The class of articles to be included in this definition,” it was intimated, “is a matter of dispute, and with the exception of arms and ammunition, is determined, as a rule, with reference to the special circumstances of each case unless one of the belligerents has expressly notified neutrals in a regular manner what articles it intends to treat as contraband and had met with no opposition.