remains open for neutral navigation the sea area west of the line Pt. de L'Espifuetti to thirty-eight degrees twenty minutes north latitude and six degrees east longitude, as well as north and west of a strip sixty sea miles broad along the north African coast beginning at two degrees west longitude.

To connect this area with Greece a strip twenty sea miles wide runs in a northerly or easterly direction along the following line:

Thirty-eight degrees north latitude and six degrees east longitude to thirty-eight degrees north latitude and ten degrees east longitude to thirty-seven degrees north latitude and eleven degrees thirty minutes east longitude to thirty-four degrees north latitude and eleven degrees thirty minutes east longitude to thirty-four degrees north latitude and twenty-two degrees thirty minutes east longitude; there runs from here a strip twenty miles wide to the westward of twentytwo degrees thirty minutes east longitude into the Greek territorial waters.

risk.

Neutrals' ships which navigate these areas do so at their own

Although provision has been made to spare during a suitable period neutral ships which in making passage to ports within the closed areas have arrived in the vicinity thereof on February first yet it is urgently to be advised that they be warned by all available means and diverted elsewhere.

Neutral ships lying in ports on the closed areas can still leave these areas with the same security if they depart before the fifth of February and take the shortest course to free waters.

This decision has also been made by Austria-Hungary with the intention of shortening the struggle by effective means of warfare and approaching a peace for which it, as distinguished from its opponents, contemplates moderate conditions which are not guided by ideas of destruction now as hitherto animated by the intention that the ultimate aim of this war is not one of conquest but the free assured development of its own as well as of other states.

Sustained by the confidence in the proved valor and efficiency of their military and naval forces and steeled by the necessity to frustrate the destructive designs of the enemy, Austria-Hungary and its allies enter upon this forthcoming earnest phase of the struggle with bitter determination, but also with the certainty that it will lead to successes which will finally decide the struggle of years and thereby justify the sacrifice of wealth and blood.

In requesting His Excellency, the Ambassador of the United States of America, to be good enough to communicate the foregoing to the Government of the United States of America the undersigned avails himself, etcetera.

PENFIELD.

The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield.

[Telegram-Paraphrase.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 14, 1917.

Mr. Lansing states that the Government of the United States, in a note dated December 6, 1915, concerning the attack on the vessel Ancona, the Austro-Hungarian Government's attention was called to the views of the United States Government on submarine operations in naval warfare which had been expressed in positive terms to Austria-Hungary's ally and of which it was presumed the Government of Austria-Hungary had full knowledge. The Austro-Hungarian Government in its reply of December 15, 1915, stated that it was not in possession of authentic knowledge of all of the pertinent correspondence of the Government of the United States nor was it the opinion of the Austro-Hungarian Government that such knowledge would suffice to cover the case of the vessel Ancona, which essentially differed in character from the cases under discussion with the German Government. Nevertheless, in its note of December 29, replying to the United States Government's note of December 19, 1915, the AustroHungarian Government stated " as concerns the principle expressed in the very esteemed note that hostile private ships, in so far as they do not flee or offer resistance, may not be destroyed without the persons on board having been placed in safety, the Imperial and Royal Government is able substantially to assent to this view of the Washington Cabinet."

Moreover, the Government of Austria-Hungary in January, 1916, in the case of the vessel Persia, stated in effect that, while no information concerning the sinking of the vessel Persia had been received by the Austro-Hungarian Government yet, in case its responsibility was involved, the principles agreed to in the case of the Ancona would guide the Austro-Hungarian Government.

Within the period of one month thereafter the Austro-Hungarian Government, coincidently with the German Government's declaration of February 10, 1916, regarding the treatment of armed merchant vessels, announced that "All merchant vessels armed with cannon for whatever purpose, by this very fact lose the character of peaceable vessels," and that "Under these conditions orders have been given to Austro-Hungarian naval forces to treat such ships as belligerent vessels."

Conformable to this declaration a number of vessels having Americans on board have been sunk in the Mediterranean, presumably by submarines belonging to Austria-Hungary, some of which were torpedoed without warning by submarines flying the flag of Austria, as in the cases of the British vessels Welsh Prince and Secondo. Concerning these cases, so far no information has been elicited and no reply has been made to inquiries made through the American ambassador at Vienna.

The Austro-Hungarian Government announced to the Government of the United States on January 31, 1917, coincidently with the German declaration of submarine danger zones in waters washing the coasts of the countries of the Entente Powers, that Austria-Hungary and its allies would from the first of February "prevent by every means any navigation whatsoever within a definite closed area.

It seems fair to conclude from the foregoing that the pledge given in the case of the vessel Ancona and confirmed in the case of the vessel Persia is essentially the same as the pledge given in the AustroHungarian Government's note of May 4, 1916, viz.: "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 a naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance," and that the declarations of the Austro-Hungarian Government of February 10, 1916, and January 31, 1917, have modified this pledge to a greater or less extent. Therefore, in view of the uncertainty in regard to the interpretation to be placed upon those declarations and in particular this later declaration it is important that the Government of the United States be advised clearly and definitely of the attitude of the Government of Austria-Hungary concerning the prosecution of submarine warfare in these circumstances. Mr. Penfield is directed to present this matter orally to the Austrian Government and to inquire as to whether the pledge given in the cases of the vessels Ancona and Persia is to be interpreted as modified or withdrawn by the declarations of the 10th of February, 1916, and the 31st of January, 1917, and he may deliver to the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs a paraphrase of this instruction, leaving the quoted texts verbatim, if after his conversation such action seems advisable.

Ambassador Penfield to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

Vienna, March 2, 1917.

Following is aide mémoire handed me by the Austro-Hungarian Government to-day:

From the aide mémoire of the American Embassy in Vienna of February 18, 1917, the Imperial and Royal Minister for Foreign Affairs understands that, in view of the declarations made by the Imperial and Royal Government on February 10, 1916, and January 31, 1917, the Washington Cabinet is in doubt as to the attitude which Austria-Hungary intends to adopt from now on in the conduct of the submarine warfare, and whether the assurance given by the Imperial and Royal Government to the Washington Cabinet in the course of negotiations in the cases of the ships Ancona and Persia has not perhaps been altered or withdrawn by the aforesaid declarations.

The Imperial and Royal Government is willingly ready to comply with the wish of the American Government that these doubts be removed by a definite and clear statement.

The Austro-Hungarian Government may be permitted, in the first place, in all brevity to discuss the methods practiced by the Entente Powers in the conduct of naval warfare, because these methods constitute the point of departure of the more severe submarine warfare put into operation by Austria-Hungary and her allies, and because thereby the attitude which the Imperial and Royal Government has so far adopted in the questions arising therefrom is elucidated.

When Great Britain entered into war against the Central Powers, only a few years had elapsed since that memorable time when she, in common with the other states, had, at The Hague, begun to lay down the fundaments of a modern law of maritime warfare; soon thereafter the English Government had assembled in London representatives of the great naval powers to complete The Hague work, principally in the sense of an equitable settlement between the interests of belligerents and neutrals. The nations were not long to enjoy the unanticipated successes of these efforts, which accomplished nothing less than an agreement upon a code which was suitable to give validity to the principle of the freedom of the sea and the interests of neutrals even in time of war.

The United Kingdom had hardly decided to participate in the war before it began to break through the bounds placed upon it by the code of international law. While the Central Powers immediately at the beginning of the war had declared their intention of adhering to the Declaration of London, which also bore the signature of the

British delegate, England cast aside the most important provisions of this declaration. In the endeavor to cut the Central Powers off from importation by sea, Great Britain extended the list of contraband step by step until it included everything now required for supporting human life. Then Great Britain laid over the coasts of the North Sea, which also constitute an important transit gate for the sea commerce of Austria-Hungary, a closure which she designated as a "blockade" in order to prevent the entrance into Germany of all goods still lacking in the list of contraband, as well as to stop all sea traffic of neutrals with those coasts and to prevent all exportation whatsoever from them. That this closure stands in the most glaring contradiction to the traditional right of blockade established by international treaties has been pointed out by the President of the United States of America himself, in words which will continue to live in the history of international law. By the illegal hindrance of exportation from the Central Powers, Great Britain intended to bring to a standstill the countless factories and concerns which the industrious and highly developed peoples had created in the heart of Europe, and to bring their workmen to idleness and thus incite them to insurrection and revolt. And when Austria-Hungary's southern neighbor entered the ranks of the enemies of the Central Powers her first act, indeed following the example of her allies, was to declare a blockade of the entire coast of her enemy in disregard of the provisions of law in the creation of which Italy a short time previously had actively participated. Austria-Hungary did not fail at once to point out to the neutral powers that this blockade was void of all legal effectiveness.

The Central Powers have hesitated more than two years. Not until then, and after mature consideration of the pros and cons, did they resort to repaying like with like and pressing their opponents hard at sea. As the only ones of the belligerents who had done everything to assure the validity of the treaties which were intended to guarantee the freedom of the sea to the neutrals they bitterly felt the compulsion of the hour which forced them to violate this freedom; but they took the step in order to fulfill an imperative duty toward their peoples and with the conviction that it was adapted to bring about the ultimate victory of the freedom of seas. The declarations which they promulgated on the last day of January of this year were only apparently directed against the rights of the neutrals; in truth they serve the reëstablishment of these rights which the enemies have incessantly violated and which they would destroy forever should they be victorious. Thus the submarines surrounding the coasts of England announce to the nations who have need of the sea-and who has not need of it?—that the day is no longer distant when the flags of all States will peacefully wave over the seas in the splendor of newly acquired freedom.

The hope may well be entertained that this announcement will find