was established at all seaports, to prevent any obstruction to the channels; the Panama Canal was carefully guarded, and similar precautions were taken at all American ports. The New York Legislature appropriated $1,000,000 for preliminary measures to guard New York property. The United States Government commenced the erection of a new fort at Rockaway Point, the eastern extremity of Long Island, for the emplacement of two or more sixteen-inch guns and four six-inch siege guns, as an additional protection to the Harbor of New York and the contiguous coasts.

Large Naval Appropriation

The House on Feb. 12, by a vote of 353 to 23 passed the Naval Appropriation bill, the largest in the history of the Government. The bill appropriates $368,553,388.07, about $55,000,000 in excess of the bill of last session. In former years a naval budget of $125,000,000 was considered large.

While thus appropriating hundreds of millions for preparedness, the House paused to adopt an amendment which reaffirms this nation's belief in a policy of arbitration in international disputes. This amendment, offered by Mr. Mann, the minority leader, and adopted without debate and by a unanimous viva voce vote, reads:

It is hereby reaffirmed to be the policy of the United States to adjust and settle its international disputes through mediation or .arbitration to the end that war may be honorably avoided.

The House included in the bill the Administration amendments empowering the President to commandeer shipyards and munitions factories in time of war or national emergency. It also approved the Administration amendment to appro

priate $1,000,000 to acquire basic patents to an airplane suitable for Government uses. These amendments were approved informally during the debate, and when the measure was put on its final passage no demand was made for a rollcall upon them.

The building program carried in the bill calls for three battleships, one battle cruiser, three scout cruisers, fifteen destroyers, one destroyer tender, one submarine tender, and eighteen submarines. The bill also provides that the limit of cost for the four battle cruisers authorized last session shall be increased to $19,000,000 each, and the limit of cost for the three scout cruisers heretofore authorized to $6,000,000 each, exclusive of armor and armament.

As reported by Chairman Padgett, the bill appropriated approximately $351,000,000, but $17,100,143 was added during consideration of the measure in the House. These additions were by committee amendments which had the approval of the Navy Department.

Having given the President blanket authority to commandeer shipyards and munition plants "in time of war or national emergency," the House, because of a conflict in committee jurisdiction, left to the Senate the question of whether there shall be included in the present bill an appropriation of $150,000,000 for the more expeditious construction of any naval vessels which the President may regard as necessary. The original House amendment included provision for a bond issue of $150,000,000 to meet this emergency allowance, but the House Rules Committee did not feel justified in reporting a special rule for a bond issue which had not been considered by the Ways and Means Committee.

P

RESIDENT WILSON, in notifying

the other neutral nations of the break between the United States and Germany, expressed the hope that they might find it possible to take similar

action. The following communication was sent by the State Department on Feb. 4 to American diplomatic representatives in neutral countries:

You will immediately notify the Government

to which you are accredited that the United States, because of the German Government's recent announcement of its intention to renew unrestricted submarine warfare, has no choice but to follow the course laid down in its note of April 18, 1916, (the Sussex note.)

It has, therefore, recalled the American Ambassador to Berlin and has delivered passports to the German Ambassador to the United States.

Say also that the President is reluctant to believe Germany actually will carry out her threat against neutral commerce, but if it be done the President will ask Congress to authorize use of the national power to protect American citizens engaged in their peaceful and lawful errands on the seas.

The course taken is, in the President's view, entirely in conformity with the principles he enunciated in his address to the Senate Jan. 12. (The address proposing a world league for peace.)

He believes it will make for the peace of the world if other neutral powers can find it possible to take similar action.

Report fully and immediately on the reception of this announcement and upon the suggestion as to similar action.

No other nation followed the example of the United States to the extent of breaking off relations with Germany; the Russian semi-official press even warned the small European neutrals against any move that would give Germany a chance to crush them and lengthen the lines to be defended by the Allies. But all these nations sent protesting notes to Germany. The South American republics and China also made vigorous protests, indicating that they stood with the United States on the subject.

Spain's Reply to Germany

The Spanish Government's answer to Germany's submarine war zone note was handed to the German Ambassador at Madrid on Feb. 6. The text is as follows:

His Majesty's Government has attentively examined the note which your Serene Highness was good enough to remit to me Jan. 31, in which is set forth the German Government's resolute intention to interrupt as from the following day all sea traffic, without further notice, and by no matter what arm, around Great Britain, France, Italy, and in the Eastern Mediterranean.

I must say that the note caused a very painful impression on the Spanish Government. The attitude of strict neutrality which Spain adopted from the beginning and has maintained with loyalty and unshakable firmness gives her the right to expect that the lives of her subjects engaged in sea trade should not be placed in such grave peril. It

also gives her the right to expect that that trade should not be troubled nor diminished by such an increase in the extent of the zones in which the Imperial Government insists that, in order to attain its ends, it must use all weapons and suppress all limitations which it has hitherto imposed upon its methods of naval warfare.

Even before the Imperial Government had set aside these restrictions his Majesty's Government had protested, holding them insufficient to comply with the prescriptions of national maritime law. But the methods of war announced by Germany are being carried to such an unexpected and unprecedented extreme that the Spanish Government, considering its rights and the requirements of its neutrality, must with still more reason protest calmly but firmly to the Imperial Government, and must make at the same time the necessary reserves, imposed by the legitimate presumption of ineluctable responsibility, which the Imperial Government assumes, principally in view of the loss of life which its attitude may cause.

His Majesty's Government bases its protest on the fact that the decision to close completely the road to certain seas by substituting for the indisputable right of capture in certain cases a pretended right of destruction in all cases is outside the legal principles of international life. Above all and beyond all it considers that the extension, in the form announced, of this pretended right of destruction to the lives of noncombatants and the subjects of neutral nations such as Spain is contrary to the principles observed by all nations even in moments of the greatest violence.

If the German Government, as it says, expects that the Spanish people and Government will not close their ears to the reasons which have caused its decision, and hopes that they will co-operate to avoid further calamities and sacrifices of human life, it will also understand that the Spanish Government, while disposed to lend at the proper time its initiative and support to everything that could contribute to the advent of a peace, more and more wished for, cannot admit the legality of exceptional methods in warfare. These methods, indeed, notwithstanding Spain's right as a neutral and her scrupulous fulfillment of the duties incumbent on her as such, make more difficult and even stop altogether her sea trade, compromising her economic life and threatening with grave dangers the lives of her subjects.

His Majesty's Government, supported more firmly than ever by the justice of its position, does not doubt that the Imperial Government, inspired by the sentiments of friendship which unite the two countries, will find, notwithstanding the severe exigencies of this terrible war, means of giving satisfaction to Spain's claims. These claims are based on the inexorable duty which binds a Government to protect the lives of its subjects and maintain the integrity of its sovereignty so that the

course of national existence be not interrupted. For the reasons set out his Majesty's Government feels itself fully sustained in its position by reason and law.

Holland's Attitude

When Mr. Langhorne, the American Chargé d'Affaires at The Hague, formally communicated President Wilson's message to the Dutch Government, he received the reply from Dr. Loudon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, that Holland was not inclined to support America's action. In the Second Chamber of Parliament Premier Vandenlinden made an address on Feb. 8 in which he said:

There is now no more reason for the Government to change its international policy than on the occasion of previous violations of international law. The Government remains resolutely attached to the policy of strict impartiality, and maintains its resolve to offer armed resistance to any violation of our territory or sovereign rights by any power whatsoever. The Government hopes by determination and tact to overcome the difficulties resulting from the international situation.

At the same time the Dutch Government sent a note of protest to Germany, dated Feb. 7, in which it pointed out that the zone proclaimed as dangerous in the Mediterranean completely blocked the passage between Port Said and the channel from Gibraltar to Greece, so that the Indian route, which is essential and of importance to the commerce of Holland as a colonial power, is cut off. The Dutch Government recalled its earlier protests against the British and German measures relating to the proclamation of war zones in the North Sea, and continued:

With all the more reason the Government is obliged to object with extreme energy against the régime now announced, which not only applies to much vaster areas, but also includes attacks on neutral ships, whatever their cargo or destination, and without discriminating as to whether their presence in said zone is voluntary or not.

It further pointed out that even had Germany qualified the new measure as a blockade, the merciless destruction of neutral ships would be contrary to international law, which only permits the confiscation, and not the destruction, of blockade runners. The note continues:

Germany does not use the term blockade, and rightly so, because it cannot be applied to such vast areas and because, by the rules of international law, it can only be directed against traffic with hostile ports, and in no

wise against direct navigation between two neutral countries. Now, the German warships are ordered to destroy ships irrespective of their trafficking with enemy ports or between neutral ports.

Faithful to the principle which has always been observed in this war, the Queen's Government can only see in such destruction of neutral ships violation of the rights of nations, to say nothing of an attack upon the laws of humanity, if this happened regardless of the security of the persons aboard. The responsibility in the event of the destruction of Dutch ships and loss of life will fall on the German Government, and all the more heavily in the foreseeable event of Dutch ships being forced to enter the danger zone by constraint of adversary warships exercising the right of search.

Protest of Switzerland

The Swiss Federal Council answered the German note with an energetic protest against the proposed submarine action. The text, made public Feb. 11, says in part:

The Imperial Government cannot fail to recognize that the measures announced by this memoire constitute an attack upon the right of peaceful commerce which in conformity with the principles of international law belongs to Switzerland, in its character as a neutral State. In fact, the blockade of nearly all ports susceptible of being utilized by Switzerland presents a serious danger in the matter of our provisionment in food products and in raw materials as well as with respect to our exportations over the sea.

Even if by friendly agreement with the French Government the utilization of the Port of Cette, exempted from the blockade, is rendered possible, maritime transport would be restrained to a degree which would cause sensible injury to our national economy.

The maritime blockade by the Government of the German Empire follows a series of measures taken during the war by both parties of belligerents in opposition to the law of nations and international agreement, by which our liberty of action in economic matters is already restricted and against which we have vainly raised our voice.

In such circumstances this blockade is all the more pressing and more weighty with consequences. The Federal Council sees itself. therefore, obliged to protest energetically and to make all reservations against the blockade announced by the Imperial Government and against its realization so far as it violates the rights of neutrals recognized by the general principles of international law, in particular where the effective application of the blockade appears incomplete.

The Federal Council gives notice in advance of all legal reservations if it happens that the means put into effect by Germany and her allies are applied to the destruction of Swiss

interests or property. The Federal Council, however, does not doubt that the Government of the empire will do all that is necessary to assure in the measure possible the security of Swiss interests and spare the painful consequences which could arise from the blockade for the economic life of the Swiss.

The same note was addressed to the Government of Austria-Hungary.

Brazil's Warning to Germany

All the South American republics, while declining to break with Germany at present, sent protests to the Berlin Government. Brazil warned that Government that it would be held responsible for acts against Brazilian citizens or ships. The text of Brazil's note, sent on Feb. 6 by Lauro Muller, the Foreign Minister, is as follows:

I have transmitted to my Government by telegraph your letter of Feb. 3, in which your Excellency informed me of the resolution of the German Imperial Government to blockade Great Britain, its islands, the littoral of France and Italy, and the Eastern Mediterranean by submarines which would commence operations on Feb. 1. Your letter stated that the submarines would prevent all maritime traffic in the zones above mentioned, abandoning all restrictions observed up to the present in the employment of means for sea fighting, and would use every military resource capable of the destruction of ships.

The letter of your Excellency said further that the German Government, having confidence that the Government of Brazil would appreciate the reasons for the methods of war which Germany was forced to take on account of the actual circumstances, hoped that Brazilian ships would be warned of the danger they ran if they navigated the interdicted zones, the same as passengers or merchandise on board any other ship of commerce, neutral or otherwise.

I have just been directed to inform your Excellency that the Federal Government has the greatest desire not to see modified the actual situation, as long as the war lasts, a situation in which Brazil has imposed upon itself the rigorous observance of the laws of neutrality since the commencement of hostilities between nations with whom she has had friendly relations. My Government has always observed this neutrality while reserving to itself the right, which belong to it and which it has always been accustomed to exercise, of action in those cases where Brazilian interests are at stake. The unexpected communication we have just received announcing a blockade of wide extent of countries with which Brazil is continually in economic relations by foreign and Brazilian shipping has produced a justified and profound impression through the imminent menace which

it contains of the unjust sacrifice of lives, the destruction of property, and the wholesale disturbance of commercial transactions.

In such circumstances, and while observing always and invariably the same principles, the Brazilian Government, after having examined the tenor of the German note, declares that it cannot accept as effective the blockade which has just been suddenly decreed by the Imperial Government. Because of the means employed to realize this blockade, the extent of the interdicted zones, the absence of all restrictions, including the failure of warning for even neutral menaced ships, and the announced intention of using every military means of destruction of no matter what character, such a blockade would neither be regular nor effective and would be contrary to the principles of law and the conventional rules established for military operations of this nature.

For these reasons the Brazilian Government, in spite of its sincere and keen desire to avoid any disagreement with the nations at war, with whom it is on friendly terms, believes it to be its duty to protest against this blockade and consequently to leave entirely with the Imperial German Government the responsibility for all acts which will involve Brazilian citizens, merchandise, or ships and which are proven to have been committeed in disregard of the recognized principles of international law and of the conventions signed by Brazil and Germany. Chile and Peru

Peru demanded reparation and indemnity for the sinking of the Lorton. Chile flatly rejected Germany's pretensions in the "prohibited zone" and reserved liberty of action to protect her rights and her citizens. Uruguay, Bolivia, Panama, and Cuba took similar action. Argentina's reply to the German submarine note declared that she would conform her conduct at sea to her fundamental rights under established international law.

The reply of the Chilean Government, made public on Feb. 7, is as follows:

The Chilean Government has taken cognizance of the note sent to it by his Majesty the German Emperor, in which Chile is informed that Germany has fixed the limits of a blockade area around the coasts of England, France, and Italy, and in the Eastern Mediterranean. It has been informed also that within said limits Germany will resort to hostile acts against whatever ship is encountered, even if it belongs to a neutral power.

Such a measure, in the opinion of the Chilean Government, amounts to a restriction of the rights of neutrals, to which restriction Chile cannot agree because it is contrary to

the principles that have been long established in favor of neutral nations.

The acceptance by Chile of the measures adopted by Germany would, moreover, divert her from the line of strict neutrality which has been followed during the European conflict.

Chile consequently reserves liberty of action to protect all of her rights in the event of any hostile acts against her ships.

The reply of the Peruvian Government, made public on Feb. 9, declares that it reserves all rights for the protection of Peruvian citizens, ships, and cargoes to which neutrals are entitled under international law. The note continues:

However deplorable may be the extremes to which the belligerents are carrying hostilities now, under new threats to neutral trade, the Peruvian Government must declare that it cannot admit the resolution of which your Government has given notification, because the Peruvian Government considers it opposed to international law and the legal rights of neutrals.

The recent odious case of the vessel Lorton, which resulted in a claim being made by my Government, proves the error and injustice of the submarine campaign, now generalized in an unacceptable form by the closure of enormous zones of free seas, with serious danger to the lives and interests of neutral countries.

The Peruvian Foreign Minister, Enrique de la Riva Aguero, in replying to the American Minister respecting President Wilson's suggestion that other neutral nations take the same position as the United States on the German submarine campaign, said:

In reply to your Excellency's note of Feb. 9, it gives me pleasure to say that my Government fully appreciates the principles and intentions that guide your Excellency in the present emergency, which are in complete conformity with your note of April 18, and which uphold the defense of the rights of all neutral nations, seriously threatened by the new methods of maritime war now attempted to be established.

My Government trusts that some modification can still be obtained, speeding the way to sentiments of justice and concord which will prevent the bringing upon America the horrors of a war without parallel in history.

The Scandinavian Protest

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark answered Germany in an identic note, agreed upon after a joint consultation in Stockholm lasting a whole week. The following official summary of it was made public by the Swedish Government:

On Tuesday, the 13th inst., the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish Governments handed to the German Ministers in their respective capitals notes identical in tenor protesting against the barring of certain sea zones announced by Germany and Austria.

The note begins by recalling the fact that during the war the Governments have several times found themselves obliged to formulate formal protests against serious infringements of the rights of neutrals involved by measures of various belligerent powers. It then emphasizes the fact that the Governments, whose actions on these various occasions were, as always, inspired by the spirit of the most perfect loyal impartiality, confined themselves to defending the imprescriptable rights of neutrals.

After pointing out that the Governments have on previous occasions protested against measures of belligerents tending to restrict the free use of the seas by neutrals, the note proceeds to emphasize that the Governments on this occasion are all the more bound to maintain, in taking the same point of view, that the obstacles placed in the way of neutral navigation are now more considerable, in both extent and gravity.

The note draws attention to the fact that the only rules of international law which might be invoked in support of measures having as their object the prevention of all commerce and all navigation with the enemy are those relating to a naval blockade. The note affirms that no belligerent has the right to prohibit peaceful navigation through zones the limits of which are very distant from enemy coasts which could be blockaded only in legitimate manner.

The Governments recall the universally recognized law on naval blockade, namely, that a neutral ship cannot be captured if it is not making any attempt to violate the blockade, and that in the event of a ship being captured it must be brought before a prize court in conformity with the general regulations.

The Governments declare their anxiety in regard to the measures which have been announced is aggravated further by the fact that the zones declared dangerous will, it appears, be watched exclusively by submarines, whose activity involves great danger for neutrals' subjects, as has been shown by experience on various occasions in the course of the war.

Finally, the note points out that the measures announced will be all the more contrary to the principles of international law if, as the tenor of the communications of the Imperial Governments seems to indicate, they are to be applied without distinction to all ships entering the zones described, and consequently to those not bound for enemy ports, but on the way from one neutral port to another.

On the ground of the considerations set forth above, the Governments formally protest against the measures taken by Germany