of relations with Germany, confines itself to protests against the illegal methods adopted by Germany's enemies. Moreover, the German people know to what a considerable extent its enemies are supplied with all kinds of war material from the United States."

But the German Government had no desire that the submarine question under discussion should "take a turn seriously threatening the maintenance of peace between the two nations. As far as it lies with the German Government it wishes to prevent things taking such a course." Therefore, guided by this idea, it "notifies the Government of the United States that 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 those ships attempt to escape or offer resistance.

"But neutrals cannot expect that Germany, forced to fight for her existence, shall for the sake of neutral interests, 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." Therefore, "in consequence of the new orders," the German Government did "not doubt that the Government of the United States will now demand and insist that the British Government shall forthwith observe the rules of international law" as laid down in the American notes to Great Britain on December 28, 1914, and November 5, 1915. "Should the steps be taken by the Government of the United States not attain the object it desires to have the laws of humanity followed by all belligerent nations, the German Government would then be facing a new situation, in which it must reserve itself complete liberty of decision."

As understood by the people, the note seemed to mean that Germany was desirous to avoid a break with the United States; that the Imperial Government sought to convey the impression that its new instructions to submarine commanders was a full compliance with the demands of the United States, and that they were made in good faith. But there was good

reason to believe, in view of the record of the past, that the spirit and perhaps the letter of the instructions would not be carried out very long. On the other hand, there were expressions and passages in the note that were offensive. "Must emphatically repudiate" the assertion that the destruction of the Sussex was but an instance of a deliberate destruction of vessels was too strong. The "regret" that the sentiments of humanity expressed for victims of submarine warfare were not extended to the many millions, women and children, Great Britain sought to starve was a little too ironical.

By the press the note was generally condemned. The new pledge had a "string tied to it" and would not be kept unless we forced Great Britain to lift her blockade. British violations affected only property, and could be atoned for with money. Those of Germany affected human life and could not be atoned for with money. Manifestly the tone of the note was intended for Berlin; the substance for Washington. All told, it had the appearance of being as little conciliatory as words could make it. "The German Government makes damnable faces all through its note, but the central thing required by President Wilson it yields." Knowing the difficulties which beset the German Government, we could therefore well afford to overlook what under other circumstances would be impudence. The concession was conditional, but it would bring the conduct of submarine warfare into accord with our demands. Expressions of opinion by forty-five daily newspapers of importance, the Philadelphia Ledger declared, showed, while eighteen approved and twelve were noncommittal, fifteen were outspoken in their disapproval. Extracts from ten German language newspapers 3 showed that, in their opinion, Germany had gone more than halfway in an effort to meet American demands. The Toledo German Express considered the note "not an ultimatum, but on the contrary a sincere and renewed effort not to have the peaceful relations of the last hundred years" severed. The Louisville Anzeiger called the note a clear, frank, fearless exposition "in which, while the German Government virtually accedes to American demands," it "at the 'Philadelphia Ledger, May 6, 1916.

• Ibid.

same time turns the issue neatly and leaves the final decision with the United States."

The special concession thus wrung from Germany after months of constant protest and negotiation was small, indeed. Enemy freight ships found in the war zone were not to be stopped, visited, searched and destroyed according to the principles of international law; other merchant ships, if they did not resist or attempt to escape, were to have the benefit of the principles of visit, search and destruction as prescribed by international law; but neutrals would not be granted even this concession if Great Britain were permitted "to continue to apply at will methods of warfare violating the principles of international law." Yet it was of real importance to force Germany to pledge herself to conduct her submarine warfare "in accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels," for it was an admission that hitherto she had not done so. But was this pledge worth anything, with the condition attached? The President and his Cabinet thought not, and on May 8, 1916, Secretary Lansing replied with a note, made public on May 9, in which "the Imperial Government's declaration of its abandonment of the policy which has so seriously menaced the good relations between the two countries," was accepted and the condition expressly rejected.

"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 fourth instant appear to be susceptible of that construction."

"In order, however, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, the Government of the United States notifies the Imperial Government that it cannot for a moment entertain, much less discuss, a suggestion that respect by German naval authorities for the rights of citizens of the United States upon the high seas should in any way or in the slightest degree be made con

tingent upon the conduct of any other Government affecting the rights of neutrals and noncombatants. Responsibility in such matters is single, not joint; absolute, not relative."

Meantime on May 8, 1916, the German Government finished its investigation and in a note to Mr. Gerard acknowledged that a German submarine damaged the Sussex. "On the basis of the American material," said von Jagow, "the German Government cannot withhold its conviction that the ship torpedoed by the German submarine is in fact identical with the Sussex, for in accordance with this material the place, the time, and the effect of the explosion by which the Sussex was damaged agree in the essential details with the statements of the German commander, so that there can no longer be any question of the possibility of two independent occurrences." Undoubtedly the German submarine commander thought he "was facing an enemy warship."

But he formed his judgment too hurriedly in establishing her character and did not, therefore, act fully in accordance with the strict instruction which called on him to exercise particular care.

"In view of these circumstances the German Government frankly admits that the assurances given to the American Government" that "passenger vessels were not to be attacked without warning has not been adhered to in the present instance." Therefore, the German Government expressed "its sincere regret regarding the deplorable incident and declares its readiness to pay an indemnity." The note closed with the expression of a "hope that the American Government will consider the case of the Sussex as settled by these statements."

CHAPTER IX

PREPAREDNESS AND PACIFISTS

WHILE the Department of State was busy with the case of the Ancona, Congress assembled and listened to the annual speech of the President. He had much to say concerning our policy towards Mexico; fuller justice for the Philippines and Porto Rico; a great merchant marine; more revenue that we might "pay as we go"; a commission to canvass the question of proper regulation of railroads; and the mobilization of the resources of the country, and asked for laws for the punishment of citizens who, "born under other flags, but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America," had "poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life," and sought "to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue."

But the portion of his speech which aroused the widest interest was that in which he asked for preparedness for national defense.

No one who understood the spirit of our people, he said, could fail to perceive "that their passion is for peace." Great democracies are not belligerent. They do not seek or desire war. We regard war merely as a means of asserting the rights of a people against aggression. We will not maintain a standing army except for uses as necessary in times of peace as in times of war. But we do believe in a body of free citizens ready and sufficient to take care of themselves and of the Government they have set up to serve them. But war has never been a mere matter of men and guns. If our citizens are to fight effectively they must know how modern fighting is done and what to do when the summons comes, and the Government