rights recognized since the foundation of our republic, rights sanctioned by international law, and furthermore established in many cases by special treaty between ourselves and Prussia. We had refused to protest against the violation of the rights of European countries—it now became a question of our own rights. Would Germany prove more scrupulous on the seas, and would she exhibit there any regard for those principles of humanity which had failed to restrain her in her warfare in Europe?

We must first consider the situation which had been developed. England had been unprepared for any war on land, and therefore had no considerable army to throw into the fighting in Europe at the beginning of hostilities. She had, however, been rapidly recruiting and training forces at home, and in the early months of 1915 the time had come when these troops and their supplies were ready to be transported to France. Large quantities of munitions, as we have seen, were soon to come from America, and German trade had been cut off. For all these reasons, therefore, Germany was anxious

to adopt measures which would prevent this increase of strength from making itself felt, and also, if possible, to destroy England's control of the seas and to open German ports again to the German navy and to the merchant fleets of neutrals.

The simplest solution of her problem she saw in an extension of the use of submarines. She knew perfectly that this could not be done as she expected to do it, in conformity with international law, but, as Secretary Zimmermann assured Ambassador Gerard, she did not believe that neutral Powers would go to war because of these violations. Furthermore, she believed that this inhuman method of warfare would bring speedy success, and, as usual, she relied upon that success for her justification. Her decision, because of its shocking character, startled us at the time and struck us as something sudden. We must remember that it was not so, that she had calculated the chances and begun a considerable time before to prepare and increase her submarines and her bases. Von Tirpitz had given out an interview late in 1914, which indicated that the plans had been

matured. He merely desired to prepare American sentiment for what was coming.

On the 4th of February, 1915, Germany issued the following proclamation:

"1. The waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland including the whole English channel are hereby declared to be war zone. On and after the 18th of February, 1915, every enemy merchant ship found in the said war zone will be destroyed without its being always possible to avert the dangers threatening the crews and passengers on that account.

"2. Even neutral ships are exposed to danger in the war zone as in view of the misuse of neutral flags ordered on January 31 by the British Government and of the accidents of naval war, it can not always be avoided to strike even neutral ships in attacks that are directed at enemy ships.

"3. Northward navigation around the Shetland Islands, in the eastern waters of the North Sea, and in a strip of not less than 30 miles width along the Netherlands coast is in no danger."*

This amazing document was communicated to our government accompanied by a memorandum respecting the "retaliatory measures

* American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, p. 84.

which had been rendered necessary" by the methods employed by England. In effect, it amounted to a series of a series of grave accusations against all neutrals including ourselves.

It began by saying that Great Britain's conduct of commercial warfare had been a mockery, complained of England's modification of the Declaration of London, her interpretation of contraband, her taking German reservists off neutral vessels, her establishing of a blockade not in accordance with law, and her attempt to starve Germany. It went on to say: "The neutral Powers have in the main acquiesced in the measures of the British Government; in particular they have not been successful in securing the release by the British Government of the German subjects and German merchandise illegally taken from their vessels. To a certain extent they have even contributed toward the execution of the measures adopted by England in defiance of the principle of the freedom of the seas by prohibiting the export and transit of goods destined for peaceable purposes in Germany, thus evidently yielding to pressure by England."

To make neutrals participes criminis, and to blame them for not having done what Germany by force of arms had been unable to do, represented a new departure in international law and a new aspect of German psychology. She further explained her purposes as follows:

"To this end it will endeavor to destroy, after February 18 next, any merchant vessels of the enemy which present themselves at the seat of war above indicated, although it may not always be possible to avert the dangers which may menace persons and merchandise. Neutral powers are accordingly forewarned not to continue to entrust their crews, passengers, or merchandise to such vessels. Their attention is furthermore called to the fact that it is of urgency to recommend to their own vessels to steer clear of these waters. It is true that the German Navy has received instructions to abstain from all violence against neutral vessels recognizable as such; but in view of the hazards of war, and of the misuse of the neutral flag ordered by the British Government, it will not always be possible to prevent a neutral vessel from becoming the victim of an attack intended to be directed against a vessel of the enemy.

*

* American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, July, 1915, p. 85.