Part 2

The events of the past two months have clearly indicated that it is possible and practicable to conduct such submarine operations as have characterized the activity of the Imperial German Navy within the so-called war zone in substantial accord with the accepted practices of regulated warfare. The whole world has looked with interest and increasing satisfaction at the demonstration of that possibility by German naval commanders. It is manifestly possible, therefore, to lift the whole practice of submarine attack above the criticism which it has aroused and remove the chief causes of offense.

In view of the admission of illegality made by the Imperial Government when it pleaded the right of retaliation in defense of its acts, and in view of the manifest possibility of conforming to the established rules of naval warfare, the Government of the United States cannot believe that the Imperial Government will longer refrain from disavowing the wanton act of its naval commander in sinking the Lusitania or from offering reparation for the American lives lost, so far as reparation can be made for a needless destruction of human life by an illegal act.

The Government of the United States, while not indifferent to the friendly spirit in which it is made, cannot accept the suggestion of the Imperial German Government that certain vessels be designated and agreed upon which shall be free on the seas now illegally proscribed. The very agreement would, by implication, subject other vessels to illegal attack, and would be a curtailment and therefore an abandonment of the principles for which this Government contends, and which in times of calmer counsels every nation would concede as of course.

The Government of the United States and the Imperial German Government are contending for the same great object, have long stood together in urging the very principles upon which the Government of the United States now so solemnly insists. They are both contending for the freedom of the seas. The Government of the United States will continue to contend for that freedom, from whatever quarter violated, without compromise and at any cost. It invites the practical co-operation of the Imperial German Government at this time, when co-operation may accomplish most and this great common object be most strikingly and effectively achieved.

The Imperial German Government expresses the hope that this object may be in some measure accomplished even before the present war ends. It can be. The Government of the United States not only feels obliged to insist upon it, by whomsoever violated or ignored, in the protection of its own citizens, but is also deeply interested in seeing it made practicable between the belligerents themselves, and holds itself ready at any time to act as the common friend who may be privileged to suggest a way.

In the meantime the very value which this Government sets upon the long and unbroken friendship between the people and Government of the United States and the people and Government of the German nation impels it to press very solemnly upon the Imperial German Government the necessity for a scrupulous observance of neutral rights in this critical matter. Friendship itself prompts it to say to the Imperial Government that repetition by the commanders of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of those rights must be regarded by the Government of the United States, when they affect American citizens, as deliberately unfriendly.

LANSING.

German and American Press Opinion

ON THE GERMAN NOTE OF JULY 8

The German answer to the United States with regard to submarine warfare was reported from Berlin on July 10 as having caused the most intense satisfaction among the Germans and brought relief to them, for the mere thought that the submarine war would be abandoned would cause widespread resentment.

The Berlin newspapers printed long editorials approving the Government's stand and "conciliatory" tone. Captain Perseus, in the Tageblatt, said that the "new note makes clearer that the present course will be continued with the greatest possible consideration for American interests." The note "stands under the motto, 'On the way to an understanding,' without, however, failing to emphasize the firm determination that our interests must hold first place," in other words, that Germany "cannot surrender the advantages that the use of the submarine weapon gives to the German people."

The Lokal Anzeiger of Berlin commented:

"Feeling has undoubtedly cooled down somewhat on the other side of the water, and Americans will undoubtedly admit that it is not Germany that tries to monopolize the freedom of the seas for itself alone.

"In any event, we have now done our utmost and can quietly await what answer President Wilson and his advisers will think suitable."

George Bernhard in the Vossische Zeitung remarked that the publication of the note means "liberation from many of the doubts that have excited a large part of the German people in recent weeks. The note ... means unconditional refusal to let any outsider prescribe to us how far and with what weapons we may defend ourselves against England's hunger war."

What they considered the moderation of the note impressed most Berlin newspapers. Thus the Morgen Post said: "Those who had advised that we ought to humble ourselves before America will be just as disappointed as those who thought we ought to bring the fist down on the table and answer America's representations with a war threat."

Count von Reventlow, radical editor of the Tageszeitung, said: "The substance of the proposals is to create a situation making it unnecessary for Americans to travel to Europe on ships under an enemy flag," and the Tägliche Rundschau said that the "answer with gratifying decisiveness, guards the conscience of the nation in the question of continuing the submarine war," but it criticises the note for possibly going too far in making concessions, which "may prove impracticable and result in weakening the submarine war."

The unfavorable reception of Germany's note in the United States, as reported through English and French agencies, was read in Berlin with incredulity.

The Kreuz-Zeitung, the Tageszeitung, and the Boersen Zeitung expressed the belief that British and French news agencies had purposely selected unfavorable editorial expressions from the American newspapers for the sake of the effect they would have in Great Britain and France.

"Regarding the reception of the German note in America," the Kreuz-Zeitung said, "several additional reports from British sources are now at hand. Reuter's Telegram Company presents about a dozen short sentences from as many American papers. Were these really approximately a faithful picture of the thought of the American press as a unit, we should have to discard every hope of a possibility of an understanding. The conception of a great majority of the German people is that we showed in our note an earnest desire to meet, as far as possibly justified, American interests."

Like the Berlin press, German-American newspapers were unanimous in praise of the German note; to the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung it appeared a "sincere effort to meet the questions involved" and as "eminently satisfactory." The New Yorker Herold thought that any one with "even a spark of impartiality" would have to admit the "quiet, conciliatory tone of the German note" as "born of the consciousness in the heart of every German that Germany did not want the war"; that after it was forced on her she "waged it with honorable means." The Illinois Staats-Zeitung of Chicago declared it to be the "just demand of Germany" that Americans should not "by their presence on hostile boats try to protect war materials to be delivered by a friendly nation at a hostile shore." From the Cincinnati Freie Presse came the comment that Washington "has no business to procure safety on the ocean for British ships carrying ammunition."

The American newspapers were nearly unanimous in adverse criticism of the note. THE NEW YORK TIMES said that Germany's request was "to suspend the law of nations, the laws of war and of humanity for her benefit." The Chicago Herald declared that the German answer "is disappointing to all who had hoped that it would clearly open the way to a continuance of friendly relations." While the San Francisco Chronicle discerned in the note "an entire absence of the belligerent spirit," it found that "Germany is asking us to abridge certain of our rights on the high seas." To the Denver Post the reply was the "extreme of arrogance, selfishness, and obstinacy," while The Atlanta (Ga.) Constitution remarks that German words and German deeds are separate matters: "The all-important fact remains that since President Wilson's first note was transmitted to that country, Germany has given us no single reasonable cause of complaint." The Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal believes the German reply would carry more weight and persuasion "if it could be considered wholly and apart as an _ex parte_ statement." "Without equivocation and with a politeness of offensively insinuating," the Boston Transcript concludes, "Germany rejects each and all of our demands and attempts to bargain with respect to the future."

ON THE AMERICAN NOTE OF JULY 21

Publication of the American note in Berlin was delayed until July 25, owing to difficulty in translating its shades of meaning. While German statesmen and editors expressed keen appreciation of its literary style, the press was unanimous in considering the note disappointing, expressing pained surprise at the American stand. Captain Perseus, naval critic of the Berlin Tageblatt, said that the note "expresses a determination to rob us of the weapon to which we pin the greatest hopes in the war on England," and indicates that the "pro-British troublemakers have finally won over the President." Count von Reventlow in the Tageszeitung complains of the note's "far too threatening and peremptory tone." The Kreuz-Zeitung says: "We are trying hard to resist the thought that the United States with its standpoint as expressed in the note, aims at supporting England," and Georg Bernhard of the Vossische Zeitung believes that yielding to President Wilson's argument means "the weakening of Germany to the enemy's advantage," adding that any one who has this in mind "is not neutral, but takes sides against Germany and for her enemies." The Boersen Zeitung says it is compelled to say, with regret, that the note is very unsatisfactory and "one cannot escape feeling that the shadow of England stands behind it." The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung says that the note is distinguished for its "clear language," and quotes the phrase "deliberately unfriendly" while noting the demand for disavowal and reparation. "Of quite unusual weight," the Staats-Zeitung says, "is the hint on the fact that the United States and Germany, so far as the freedom of the seas is concerned, have the same object in view." "Sharp and clear is it also explained" that after the end of the war the United States is "ready to play the rôle of an intermediary, in order to find a practicable way out." In fact, the note handed to the Government in Berlin "is at the same time meant for London," since it expresses itself as determined to protect neutrals "against every one of the warring nations." The New Yorker Herold is "certain that the complications will be settled amicably," while the Illinois Staats-Zeitung feels that "apparently our Government has a secret agreement with England intentionally to provoke Germany."

In praise of this note American press opinion is again nearly unanimous. The New York World says that "what the President exacts of Germany is the minimum that a self-respecting nation can demand." The New York Tribune calls the note an admirable American document. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle says it is strongly put, but not too strongly, and the Boston Herald thinks there is no escape from its logic. The Philadelphia Public Ledger says "the final word of diplomacy has obviously been said," and the Administration cannot "engage in further debate or yield on any point." The Chicago Herald believes the note is couched in terms that "no intelligent man would resent from a neighbor whose friendship he values." The St. Louis Republic says: "One hundred and twenty-eight years of American history and tradition speak in President Wilson's vindication." The St. Paul Pioneer Press calls the note "a great American charter of rights," and the Charleston News and Courier declares that "we have drawn a line across which Germany must not step." The Portland Oregonian says: "If there was any expectation that the President's note to Germany would yield any measure of American rights or descend from the noble and impressive determination of the original warning to and demand upon Germany, it has not been fulfilled."

Austria-Hungary's Protest

_An Associated Press dispatch dated London, July 16, says:_

According to an Amsterdam dispatch to Reuter's Telegram Company it is stated from Vienna that the Austro-Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a note to the American Ambassador at Vienna on June 29, drawing attention to the fact that commercial business in war material on a great scale is proceeding between the United States and Great Britain and her Allies, while Austria-Hungary and Germany are completely cut off from the American market.

It is set forth in the note that this subject has occupied the Government of the Dual Monarchy from the very beginning, and, although the Government is convinced that the American attitude arises from no other intention than to observe the strictest neutrality and international agreements, yet "the question arises whether conditions as they have developed during the course of the war, certainly independently of the wish of the American Government, are not of such a kind as in their effect to turn the intentions of the Washington Cabinet in a contrary direction.

"If this question is answered in the affirmative, and its affirmation cannot be doubted," according to the opinion of the Austro-Hungarian Government, "then the question follows whether it does not seem possible, or even necessary, that appropriate measures should be taken to make fully respected the wish of the American Government to remain a strictly impartial vis-à-vis of both belligerent parties."

The note continues:

"A neutral government cannot be allowed to trade in contraband unhindered, if the trade take the form and dimensions whereby the neutrality of the country will be endangered. The export of war material from the United States as a proceeding of the present war is not in consonance with the definition of neutrality. The American Government, therefore, is undoubtedly entitled to prohibit the export of war material.

"Regarding the possible objections that American industry is willing to supply Austria-Hungary and Germany, which, however, is impossible owing to the war situation, it may be pointed out that the American Government is in a position to redress this state of things. It would be quite sufficient to advise the enemies of Austria-Hungary and Germany that the supply of foodstuffs and war material would be suspended if legitimate trade in these articles between Americans and neutral countries was not permitted."

In conclusion, the Austro-Hungarian Government appeals to the United States, calling attention to the uninterrupted good relations and friendship between that country and the dual monarchy, to take the present note under careful consideration.

WHY AUSTRIA ACTED

_A dispatch from Vienna, via London, dated July 16, gives the following information from The Associated Press:_

From a highly authoritative source at the Foreign Office a representative of The Associated Press has received an explanation of the motives that are said to have inspired the dispatch of the Austro-Hungarian note to the United States regarding the American traffic in war munitions.

The Austro-Hungarian statesman who spoke said that, although the facts upon which the note was based had been in existence for a long time, the communication was sent only now, when, after great victories in Galicia, it could not be interpreted as a cry for help from a land in distress. He disavowed in advance any idea that the note was sent at the request or inspiration of Germany, asserting that the step was taken spontaneously in the hope that, owing to the undisturbed friendly relations between Austria-Hungary and the United States, the note would be assured a sympathetic reception in the latter country.

"The note," said this statesman, "is inspired by friendly feelings of the monarchy toward the Union, where so many of our subjects have found a second home. It is the speech of a friend to a friend--an attitude which we are the more justified in taking because the relations of the two states have never been clouded.

"It might, perhaps, easily be a source of wonder that, since the basic grounds of the note have been in existence for months, the note was not sent long ago; but there is a reason for its appearance at this particular time. In view of the incredible rumors and reports about the condition of the monarchy which have been circulating throughout the United States, this note would surely have been interpreted at an earlier stage of events as a confession of weakness, as an appeal for help in distress. Today, when a rich harvest is being garnered throughout the monarchy, when talk of starving out Austria-Hungary therefore is rendered idle, when complaints of shortage of ammunition are heard everywhere else except in the allied central monarchies, there cannot be the slightest question of this.

"On the other hand, it might be asked why the note, under these conditions, was issued at all. With nothing to check the victorious progress of the central powers in sight, with their ability to meet pressure in the economic field demonstrated, it might well be thought that it is a matter of indifference to them whether America continues her policy or not. That, however, is not the case. The problems of international law which this war has brought up are of far-reaching importance. The solutions reached will be standards of action for decades to come.

"For eminently practical as well as theoretical reasons, therefore, the monarchy is forced now not only to concern itself with the questions of the day, but also to feel its responsibility toward the future interests of mankind; and for this reason the Government thought it necessary to approach the subject under discussion--the more so because it felt that the previous debate pro and con had not, as it wished, led to the desired result, and because it believed that numbers of arguments specially laid down in The Hague Convention hitherto had escaped consideration.

"It may, of course, be assumed that the note is a product of mature consideration, and was drafted after consultation with international law experts of the first rank. The absence of the slightest hostile intent in it against the Union is shown not only by the opening phrases, but by the fact that it was published only after it leaked out in the United States that there was no objection to its publication.

"The question of whether Austria-Hungary feels that she is being cut off by America may be answered unreservedly in the affirmative. The military monarchy can and will continue the war as long as necessary. The population will, as hitherto, suffer neither starvation nor material want. But there are other interests than those connected primarily with war which every Government is bound to consider, and unhampered trade relations with the United States are of the greatest importance to us.

"Finally, not only material, also I might say sentimental, interests play a certain rôle not to be underestimated among the people. Many warm friends of America among us are painfully affected by the fact that actual conditions give the impression that America, even though unintentionally, differentiates between the belligerents.

"Austro-Hungarian statesmen, conscious of the great rôle that America will be called upon to play in the future, would forget their duty if they neglected to do everything in their power to clear away the circumstances that shake the confidence of the bravely fighting armies and the whole population in the justice of America. It is clear that the war would have been ended long ago if America had not supplied our enemies with the means of continuing it.

"The assumption that the Austro-Hungarian note was sent at the wish of the German Government is incorrect. On the contrary, it is a completely spontaneous demonstration, inspired wholly by the Austro-Hungarian considerations. We hope it will be received and judged in America in the same spirit in which it was sent."

MR. WOOLSEY'S OPINION

_Theodore S. Woolsey, formerly Professor of International Law at Yale University, in Leslie's Weekly, for July 29, has an article entitled "The Case for the Munitions Trade." In part Professor Woolsey says:_

In the midst of widespread industrial depression came a great war. This war intensified the depression. It cut off markets, raised freights, retarded payments, upset the whole commercial world and we suffered with the rest. Then shortly came a demand for certain products and certain manufactures caused by the war itself, varied, considerable, even unexpected. This demand grew until it became an appreciable factor in our industrial life, a welcome source of profit when so many other sources of profit were cut off. It was a good thing; at the same time it was a temporary, unnatural thing, and directly or indirectly it was based upon the desire of some of our friends to kill others of our friends. Accordingly people began to give this trade bad names. They called it unneutral, wrong, inhuman.

For the sake of our pockets we were adding to the sum of human suffering and slaughter, and they urged that, even if legally justified, ethically this trade was a blot upon our character as a humane and civilized people and must be stopped. Where does the truth lie? What can the munitions trade say for itself?

Naturally, it turns for justification first to the usage of other wars, to the recognized rules of international law. As expressed in Article 7, Convention XIII, of the 1907 Conference at The Hague, the law is as follows:

"A neutral power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunitions or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet."

The next previous article had prohibited a Government from engaging in this trade, so that the distinction between what the State and the individual may do is made perfectly clear, provided both belligerents are treated alike. To permit trade in arms with one belligerent and forbid it with another would be unneutral and illegal.

We permit the munitions trade with both belligerents, it is true, and yet, owing to the chances of war, the right to buy inures to the advantage of one only. Does this stamp our conduct as unneutral? Quite the contrary. To embargo munitions bought by one because the other side does not choose to buy would be the unneutral act. Germany doesn't buy because she cannot transport.