in the law of nations. It has made every allowance for unprecedented conditions and has been willing to wait until the facts became unmistakable and were susceptible of only one interpretation.

"It now owes it to a just regard for its own rights to say to the Imperial Government that that time has come. It has become painfully evident to it that the position which it took at the very outset is inevitable, namely, the use of submarines for the destruction of an enemy's commerce, is, of necessity, because of the very character of the vessels employed and the very methods of attack which their employment of course involves, utterly incompatible with the principles of humanity, the long-established and incontrovertible rights of neutrals, and the sacred immunities of noncombatants.

"If it is still the purpose of the Imperial Government to prosecute relentless and indiscriminate warfare against vessels of commerce by the use of submarines without regard to what the Government of the United States must consider the sacred and indisputable rules of international law and the universally recognized dictates of humanity, the Government of the United States is at last forced to the conclusion that there is but one course it can pursue. Unless the Imperial Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight-carrying

vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether. This action the Government of the United States contemplates with the greatest reluctance but feels constrained to take in behalf of humanity and the rights of neutral nations."*

The German reply of May 4, 1916, makes a painful impression. Germany had evidently been stung to the quick, for her tergiversating answer to our inquiry had failed to shake our certitude of her responsibility, and the plain statement of facts in our review of the situation amounted to a direct accusation of inhumanity and lawlessness. Her answer was, therefore, given in anger, not in sorrow. It included, in addition to paradoxical protestations of her entire innocence and of her humanity to non-combatants, accusations against the United States for failing to accept previous proposals of hers and especially accusations against British inhumanity and our own partiality to Britain. But it evidently recognized the gravity of the crisis and contained the following promises:

*American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, October, 1916, p. 190.

"The German Government, guided by this idea, notifies the Government of the United States that the German naval forces have received the following orders: In accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance.

"But neutrals can not expect that Germany, forced to fight for her existence, shall, for the sake of neutral interest, restrict the use of an effective weapon if her enemy is permitted to continue to apply at will methods of warfare violating the rules of international law. Such a demand would be incompatible with the character of neutrality, and the German Government is convinced that the Government of the United States does not think of making such a demand, knowing that the Government of the United States has repeatedly declared that it is determined to restore the principle of the freedom of the seas, from whatever quarter it is violated." *

It will be seen that Germany, though making a definite promise not to sink merchantmen without warning or without saving human lives,

* American Journal of International Law, Special Supplement, October, 1916, pp. 198-199.

attempted to make this promise contingent upon some action on our part against Great Britain.

This would have made it possible for Germany to reopen the question in case negotiations between the United States and Great Britain were not settled to her satisfaction. Washington was, however, determined that this dangerous question should be settled finally and not conditionally. In the last paragraph of the American reply, therefore, this point was made an issue, and any such interpretation of the promise was specifically precluded. The communication was sent to Berlin on May 8, 1916, and read as follows:

"DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

WASHINGTON, May 8, 1916. "You are instructed to deliver to the Minis ter of Foreign Affairs a communication textually as follows:

"The note of the Imperial German Government under date of May 4, 1916, has received careful consideration by the Government of the United States. It is especially noted, as indicating the purpose of the Imperial Government as to the future, that it "is prepared to do its utmost to confine the operations of the war for the rest of its duration to the fighting forces of the belligerents," and that it is determined to impose upon all its commanders at sea the limi

tations of the recognized rules of international law upon which the Government of the United States insisted. Throughout the months which have elapsed since the Imperial Government announced, on February 4, 1915, its submarine policy, now happily abandoned, the Government of the United States has been constantly guided and restrained by motives of friendship in its patient efforts to bring to an amicable settlement the critical questions arising from that policy. Accepting the Imperial Government's declaration of its abandonment of the policy which has so seriously menaced the good relations between the two countries, the Government of the United States will rely upon a scrupulous execution henceforth of the now altered policy of the Imperial Government, such as will remove the principal danger to an interruption of the good relations existing between the United States and Germany.

"The Government of the United States feels it necessary to state that it takes it for granted that the Imperial German Government does not intend to imply that the maintenance of its newly announced policy is in any way contingent upon the course or result of diplomatic negotiations between the Government of the United States and any other belligerent Government, notwithstanding the fact that certain passages in the Imperial Government's note of the 4th instant might appear to be susceptible of that construction. In order, however, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, the Gov. ernment of the United States notifies the Impe