and every soul on board to the bottom of the sea he would be commended, not condemned, by the Kaiser. Nor can the commander plead a mistake. The German Government does not tolerate mistakes on the part of its officers, naval or military.

The consul of Queenstown, in his dispatch, said there were troops on board and a four-inch gun mounted in the stern. These statements were now seized on by the pro-German press to prove Germany justified. Judging from the consular telegram, said the New York Staats-Zeitung, the Hesperian, under international law, was not "a harmless passenger ship," but "a war craft, for the dispatch says that the liner, despite the fact that she had criminally taken passengers aboard, was armed. Doesn't it appear to be about time for Washington to warn American citizens of the dangers that menace them aboard British passenger ships?"

"The attack on the Hesperian," said the New York Herold, "will scarcely afford the jingoes a cause of war." Nothing was said about her being warned but "it was evidently attempting to escape; besides, it had a gun mounted on deck. These circumstances will undoubtedly be sufficient to relieve our Government of the necessity of writing new notes or putting new questions to Germany." Said the Cleveland Wachter und Anzeiger, "Even according to cable reports, the Hesperian had British and Canadian horse and a mounted gun on board, thereby being an army transport. So Germany seems to have been well within her rights as a belligerent, and since no American lives were lost it is a matter between the belligerents alone, which does not concern America at all."

CHAPTER VI

AN EMBARGO DEMANDED

As month followed month and the war showed no signs of a speedy ending, there sprang up in our country, chiefly in the states along the Atlantic seaboard, a feeling that the time had come for the United States to prepare for defense. We have, it was said, a small but highly trained and efficient regular army. We have a small but undoubtedly efficient navy, and a National Guard with depleted ranks and antiquated guns and probably no ammunition. But the most careless observer of events in the old world must have seen that three implements of warfare, never before used, have made the means of defense once sufficient on land and sea now little better than useless. These three are the submarine, the aeroplane and the great siege guns which battered down the forts around Liége. Siege guns are not likely ever to trouble us; but have we submarines and aeroplanes and heavy long range guns to defend our coast, and where are the men to man them? If it is necessary to have an army of any size and a navy of any number of ships, it is equally necessary that the army and navy shall be large enough and so equipped with the very latest implements of warfare that they may really defend the country, for we know not when our day may come.

That Germany in her greed for world dominion might find it necessary to deal with us had not passed unnoticed by her military writers. Only a few years before this time General von Edelsheim, a member of the German General Staff, had duly considered it in his pamphlet "Operationen Über See."

Operations against the United States of North America would have to be conducted in a different manner. During the last years political friction with that state, especially friction arising from commercial causes, has not been lacking, and the difficulties that have arisen have mostly been settled by our giving way. As this obliging

attitude has its limit, we have to ask ourself what force we can possibly bring to bear in order to meet the attacks of the United States against our interests and to impose our will. Our fleet will probably be able to defeat the naval forces of the United States, which are distributed over two oceans, and over long distances. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the defeat of their fleet will force the United States with their immense resources into concluding

peace. . . .

Considering the great extent of the United States, the conquest of the country by an army of invasion is not possible. But enterprises on the Atlantic coast, and the conquest of the most important arteries through which imports and exports pass, will create such an unbearable state of affairs in the whole country that the Government will readily offer acceptable conditions in order to obtain peace.

If Germany begins preparing a fleet of transports and troops for landing purposes at the moment when the battle fleet steams out of our harbors, we may conclude that operations on American soil can begin after about four weeks, and it cannot be doubted that the United States will not be able to oppose to us within that time an army equivalent to our own.

At present the regular army of the United States amounts to about 65,000 men, of whom only about 30,000 could be used. Of them about 10,000 are required for watching the Indian territories, and for guarding the fortifications on the seacoast. Therefore, only about 20,000 men of the regular army are ready for war. Besides, about 100,000 militia are in existence, of whom the larger part did not come up when called out during the last war. Lastly, the militia is not efficient, it is partly armed with muzzle-loaders, and its training is worse than its armament. . . .

[The] task of the fleet would be to undertake a series of large landing operations through which we are able to take several of their important and wealthy towns (on the Atlantic seaboard) within a brief space of time. By interrupting their communications, by destroying all buildings serving the State, commerce and defense, by taking away all material for war and transport, and lastly, by levying heavy contributions, we should be able to inflict damage on the United States.1

While the need of preparedness was under discussion, Mr. Gardner, a representative from Massachusetts, brought the matter before the House of Representatives on October 15, 1914, by offering a joint resolution providing for a National Security Commission, to ascertain if the United States is prepared for war.

"Modern Germany," J. E. Barker, 1912.

The United States, he said, is totally unprepared for a war, defensive or offensive, against a real power. We have been trying to believe that no one would dare to attack us; but are we so sure of this in view of what is happening in Europe? We are the most prosperous nation on earth and to the south of us lies the wonderful South American Continent, which we have closed to European colonization by the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine cannot be maintained unless we are ready to fight for it. Does any one suppose that if, after the war, Germany finds the Monroe Doctrine in her way, she will pay the slightest attention to it, if the increase of her population forces her to look for colonial outlet?

"But no matter which side wins, we must remember that since the beginning of time victorious nations have proved headstrong and highhanded. We must begin at once to reorganize our military strength if we expect to be able to resist highhandedness when the day of necessity comes." The resolution went to the Committee on Rules and nothing more was heard of it during the session.

General Leonard Wood, speaking to the Medical Club of Philadelphia, declared we had never fought "a really first class nation" and were "pitifully unprepared, should such a calamity be thrust upon us." The regular army numbered but 103,000 men, scattered through China, Alaska, the Philippines, Hawaii and the United States. Should war descend on us suddenly, as it did on Europe, the regular army "available to face such a crisis" would be "just about equal to the police forces of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago."

The administration at this time saw no need for such an investigation as Mr. Gardner wished. Indeed, after an interview with the gentleman from Massachusetts, on the eve of the meeting of Congress in December, the President was reported to have authorized the statement that he thought the method proposed an unwise way of handling a question that might create a very unfavorable international impression.

What were the views of the President was clearly stated in his speech to Congress on December 8, 1914:

It is said in some quarters that we are not prepared for war. What is meant by being prepared? Is it meant that we are not ready upon

brief notice to put a nation in the field, a nation of men trained to arms? Of course we are not ready to do that, and we shall never be in time of peace so long as we retain our present political principles and institutions. And what is it that it is suggested that we should be prepared to do? To defend ourselves against attack? We have always found means to do that, and shall find them whenever it is necessary without calling our people away from their necessary tasks to render compulsory military service in times of peace.

[We were at peace with all the world, did not dread the power of any nation, were not] "jealous of rivalry in the fields of commerce," [meant to live and let live]. We are a true friend to all the nations of the world, because we threaten none, covet the possessions of none, desire the overthrow of none. .. We are the champions of peace and of concord. And we should be very jealous of this distinction which we have sought to earn. . . .

...

From the first we have had a clear and settled policy with regard to military establishments. We never have had, and while we retain our present principles and ideals we never shall have, a large standing army. If asked, are you ready to defend yourselves? we reply, Most assuredly, to the utmost; and yet we shall not turn America into a military camp. We will not ask our young men to spend the best years of their lives making soldiers of themselves. .. We must depend in every time of national peril, in the future as in the past, not upon a standing army, nor yet upon a reserve army, but upon a citizenry trained and accustomed to arms.

Men of every shade of opinion, pacifists and advocates of preparedness, anti-militarists, pro-Germans and GermanAmericans, now made haste to organize and urge their views. One evening in early December some two hundred and fifty men of affairs in the city of New York met and founded the National Security League. Their purpose was to obtain by investigation exact information as to the condition of our military and naval defenses; find out how much the present annual appropriation for this purpose would have to be increased to secure the utmost efficiency; and bring about such organizations of our citizens the country over, "as may make practical an intelligent expression of public opinion and may insure for the nation an adequate system of national defense."

Scarcely had the National Security League been founded when a meeting called by Bishop Greer, President Butler of Columbia University in the City of New York, Mr. Villard and others, formed the American League to Limit Armament,