G

ERMAN methods of submarine warfare, which have at last caused the breaking of friendly relations between the United States and Germany, have a record extending from October, 1914, to the present time. According to a statement published by the German Admiralty, 1,303 merchant vessels had been sunk by the Teutonic allies up to June 30, 1916. A later statement, issued officially at Berlin, claimed a total of 4,000,000 tons of Entente shipping destroyed up to the beginning of 1917, including 3,000,000 tons under the British flag. These figures, however, are believed to be in excess of the facts. According to Lloyd's Register, the total to. Feb. 1 was a little more than 3,000,000 tons.

According to Germany's official claims, the month of December, 1916, brought the destruction of 152 merchant ships of the Entente Powers and 65 neutral vessels, "sunk because of their tranportation of contraband to the enemy," making 415,000 tonnage destroyed in that month alone. The record for January was on a similar scale. That for the first two weeks of February-under the policy of "intensified warfare '-was 101 ships of 208,010 tonnage sunk.

A valuable summary of the leading cases of this kind from the beginning of the war to the end of last October, with dates, details, and diplomatic developments, recently appeared in the semiofficial Nouvelles de France, from which it is here translated for CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE. All direct quotations from diplomatic notes have been verified from the official text:

Period Preceding the Lusitania Case Oct. 26, 1914-The French steamship Amiral Ganteaume is torpedoed without warning while transporting from Calais to La Pallice 2,500 refugees from the North of Belgium. Thirty sailors and passengers are killed or drowned; the others are saved,

thanks to the proximity of the coast and the swiftness of the aid furnished.

Jan. 29, 1915-The French Government addresses to the neutral powers a memorandum protesting against the torpedoing of the Amiral Ganteaume. This memorandum states the facts ascertained after a careful investigation. "The attack upon the French steamer and its passengers," it says, was committed by a vessel of the Imperial German Navy: (1) Without daring to show its colors; (2) without visit, order, or warning; (3) upon a defenseless passenger ship loaded with women, children, and old men; (4) without any military, strategic, or naval utility, and without any other possible result than the murder of inoffensive persons and the destruction of a merchant vessel outside of all possibility of capture and subsequent judgment in a prize court." The Government of the republic brings these facts to the knowledge of the powers which at the second peace conference (session of Oct. 9. 1907) had received, as the memorandum recalls, from Baron Marshal von Bieberstein, first German plenipotentiary, the following declaration: "The officers of the German Navy, I say it emphatically, will always fulfill in the strictest manner the duties based on the unwritten law of humanity and civilization."

Jan. 30, 1915-Torpedoing by German submarines of the English steamships Take Maru and Icaria in the North Sea, and of the English steamships Linda Blanche and Ben Cruachen in the Irish Sea. The two former were torpedoed without the required warning; the others after an examination of papers and a notice to the crews to leave the ships.

Jan. 31, 1915-Protest of the French Minister of Marine against these acts.

Feb. 1, 1915-A German submarine fires a torpedo at the English hospital ship Asturias without hitting it.

Feb. 3, 1915-Note from the French Minister of Marine protesting against the attack on the Asturias and invoking the immunity guaranteed to hospital ships by Convention X., signed at The Hague on Oct. 18, 1907.

Feb. 3, 1915-Memorandum from Germany to the neutral powers declaring "all the waters around Great Britain and Ireland, including the whole of the English Channel. a war zone," and announcing that on and after Feb. 18 Germany "will attempt to destroy every enemy ship found in that war zone, without its being always possible to

avoid the danger that will thus threaten neutral persons and ships." Germany gives warning that "it cannot be responsible hereafter for the safety of crews, passengers, and cargoes of such ships," and it furthermore "calls the attention of neutrals to the fact that it would be well for their ships to avoid entering this zone, for, although the German naval forces are instructed to avoid all violence to neutral ships, in so far as these can be recognized, the order given by the British Government to hoist neutral flags and the contingencies of naval warfare might be the cause of these ships becoming the victims of an attack directed against the vessels of the enemy."

The War Zone Controversy

Feb. 10, 1915-American note in reply to the German memorandum. It states that the American Government views the possibilities referred to in this memorandum "with such grave concern, that it feels it to be its privilege, and, indeed, its duty, in the circumstances to request the Imperial German Government to consider before action is taken the critical situation in respect of the relation between this country and Germany which might arise were the German naval forces, in carrying out the policy foreshadowed. in the Admiralty's proclamation, to destroy any merchant vessel of the United States or cause the death of American citizens. * declare and exercise a right to attack and destroy any vessel entering a prescribed area of the high seas without first certainly determining its belligerent nationality and the contraband character of its cargo would be an act so unprecedented in naval warfare that this Government is reluctant to believe that the Imperial Government of Germany in this case contemplates it as possible."

Το

Feb. 15, 1915-Note from the German Admiralty indicating that after Feb. 18 Germany will make war by all the means in her power against the British merchant marine in the war zone, and warning neutrals not to enter that zone because they would expose themselves to the same risks "as if they sailed through the midst of naval battles "-risks "for which Germany disowns all responsibility."

Feb. 17, 1915-Germany answers the American note. She holds that the creation of a war zone is a reply to the war methods of England, which are contrary to the law of nations, and that it is a means for hindering

the importation of war materials into England and the allied countries. She asks the American Government to advise merchant ships of that nationality to avoid the war zone.

Attempt at Modus Vivendi

Feb. 22, 1915-American note containing certain suggestions for the establishment of a modus vivendi among the belligerents; one of the articles of this modus vivendi proposes that no Government should use submarines to attack merchant vessels of any nationality except to enforce the right of visit and search; on the other hand, England should allow foodstuffs to pass through to the German civil population.

Feb. 28, 1915-Germany replies to the preceding note. She declares herself favorable to the establishment of a modus vivendi, but with modifications. She subordinates the observance of general rules of international law by submarines to the condition that merchant ships shall not be armed; she exacts, besides, that Germany be permitted to import articles of prime necessity indicated in the free list of the Declaration of London, (cotton, rubber, ores, &c.;) she suggests, likewise, that the importation of war munitions from neutral to belligerent countries be forbidden.

March 1, 1915-Declaration of France and England criticising as contrary to international law the German policy of torpedoing at sight, in the war zone, every merchant ship under every flag, without regard for the safety of the crew and passengers. The declaration announces the purpose of the Allies to employ methods of reprisal consistent with the principles of humanity, and consisting in the interception of merchandise destined for Germany or proceeding from Germany.

March 10, 1915-Declaration from the German Ambassador at Washington attributing to an error the attack on the hospital ship Asturias.

March 13, 1915-British memorandum to the United States. It indicates that, as the Germans refuse to renounce the use of mines for offensive purposes, and are not disposed to discontinue their attacks on merchant ships, it is useless to examine the terms of the proposed modus vivendi.

March 13, 1915-Torpedoing of the Hanna, a Swedish vessel; six victims.

March 28, 1915-Torpedoing of the British steamer Falaba by a German submarine. The torpedoes are fired while the crew and passengers are entering the small boats. More than 100 persons, including Mr. Thrasher, an American citizen, perish with the ship.

April 8, 1915-A German submarine torpedoes the steamer Harplyce, in the service of the American Commission for the Aid of Belgium, and provided with a safe conduct issued by the German Minister at The Hague; fifteen victims.

May 1, 1915-American steamer Gulflight torpedoed by a German submarine, entailing the death of two Americans.

May 1, 1915-Count von Bernstorff, German Ambassador, publishes in the American newspapers a notice informing the public that allied vessels entering the war zone are liable to destruction, and that neutral passengers traveling on such vessels will do so at their own risk.

Sinking of the Lusitania

May 7, 1915-The British passenger steamer Lusitania is torpedoed without warning by a German submarine; 1,198 victims, of whom 124 were American citizens.

May 13, 1915-Note from Secretary of State Bryan to Germany. The American Government declares itself unable to believe that such acts as the destruction of the Falaba, the Gulflight, and the Lusitania, acts so absolutely contrary to the rules, practice, and spirit of modern warfare," can have the sanction of the German Government. The adoption of measures of reprisal so far exceeding ordinary methods of maritime warfare, the warning against the danger of traversing a so-called zone of war, cannot limit the rights of commanders of American vessels or of American citizens traveling legally as passengers on commercial vessels of belligerent nationality. The American Government cannot believe that the German Government questions these rights.

"It assumes, on the contrary, that the Imperial Government accept, as of course, the rule that the lives of noncombatants, whether they be of neutral citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of an unarmed merchantman, and recognize also, as all other nations do, the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and search to ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in fact of belligerent nationality or is in fact carrying contraband of war under a neutral flag."

The note goes on to point out the practical impossibility of employing submarines for the destruction of commerce without "disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which all modern opinion regards as imperative. It is practically impossible for the officers of a submarine to visit a merchantman at sea and examine her papers and cargo. It is practically impossible for them to make a prize of her; and if they cannot put a prize crew on board of her, they cannot sink her without leaving her crew and all on board of her to the mercy of the sea in her small boats." In the cases cited the necessary time was not allowed for taking the most elementary measures of safety, and in at least two of them no warn-, ing was given. The notice published in the newspapers, and supposed to come from the German Embassy, cannot be accepted as an excuse. The American Government wishes to believe that the German submarines have disobeyed orders, and that the German Government will disavow the acts in question, make reparation for them, and take imme

diate measures to prevent their repetition. The note concludes:

"Expressions of regret and offers of reparation in case of the destruction of neutral ships sunk by mistake, while they may satisfy international obligations if no loss of life results, cannot justify or excuse a practice the natural and necessary effect of which is to subject neutral nations and neutral persons to new and immeasurable risks. The Imperial Government will not expect the Government of the United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the performance of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens, and of safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment."

May 25, 1915-American steamship Nebraskan attacked by a German submarine, which fires a torpedo without warning.

May 28, 1915-Foreign Secretary von Jagow replies. The attack on the Gulflight is explained as an error due to the fact that English ships use the American flag. The Falaba had been allowed only a brief time for the escape of passengers and crew because that vessel had tried to escape. As to the Lusitania, it was an auxiliary cruiser: it had guns hidden under the deck; it was transporting Canadian troops and munitions of war; the rapidity with which it sank was due to an explosion of munitions caused by the torpedo, "otherwise, in all human probability, the passengers of the Lusitania would have been saved.' The German Government submits all these facts to the American Government and reserves its final decision until it shall have received a reply.

June 1, 1915-Note from von Jagow declaring that the torpedoing of the Gulflight is the result of an error, for which the marine commander was not to blame, and offering to pay an indemnity.

June 2, 1915-Count von Bernstorff proposes to President Wilson: (1) The cessation of submarine warfare if the United States insist on obtaining from England the freedom of Germany to import foodstuffs, cotton, and materials of prime necessity; (2) immunity of vessels and passengers coming from American ports if the United States will guarantee that these vessels are not carrying contraband of war. President Wilson rejects these suggestions and holds to the terms of his note of May 13.

Reply in Lusitania Case

As re

June 9, 1915-American reply to the German notes of May 28 and June 1. gards the case of the Falaba, the United States Government is surprised to find the German Government holding that an effort on the part of a merchant ship to escape can modify the obligation to safeguard the lives of those on board. 'Nothing but actual forcible resistance or continued efforts to escape by flight when ordered to stop for the purpose of visit on the part of the merchantman has ever been held to forfeit the lives

44

of her passengers or crew." The German Government is misinformed when it asserts that the Lusitania was carrying troops cr was armed for offense.

"Whatever be the other facts regarding the Lusitania, the principal fact is that a great steamer, primarily and chiefly a conveyance for passengers, and carrying more than a thousand souls that had no part or lot in the conduct of the war, was torpedoed and sunk without so much as a challenge or a warning, and that men, women, and children were sent to their death in circumstances unparalleled in modern warfare. The fact that more than one hundred American citizens were among those who perished made it the duty of the Government of the United States to speak of these things and once more, with solemn emphasis, to call the attention of the Imperial German Government to the grave responsibility which the Government of the United States conceives that it has incurred in this tragic occurrence, and to the indisputable principle upon which that responsibility rests. The Government of the United States, therefore, deems it reasonable to expect that the Imperial German Government will adopt the measures necessary to put these principles into practice in respect of the safeguarding of American lives and American ships, and asks for assurances that this will be done."

*

[Remark. The foregoing note does not radically condemn the use of submarines against commercial vessels, as did the note of May 13. It limits itself to requiring that this use shall be combined with respect for neutral ships and for the lives of noncombatants.]

July 8, 1915-Germany replies to the American note of June 9. She asserts that all the evil is due to Germany's enemies, who have paralyzed commerce between Germany and neutral countries contrary to international law, and that this obliges Germany to make submarine war upon commerce. In the fight for existence which has been imposed upon Germany by her adversaries it is the sacred duty of the Imperial Government to do all within its power to protect and save the lives of German subjects. The case of the Lusitania "shows with horrible clearness to what jeopardizing of human lives the manner of conducting war employed by our adversaries leads." * * The German Government declares itself "ready to do all it can during the present war also to prevent the jeopardizing of lives of American citizens. In order to exclude any unforeseen dangers to American passenger steamers, made possible in view of the conduct of maritime war by Germany's adversaries, German submarines will be instructed to permit the free and safe passage of such passenger steamers when made recognizable by special markings and notified a reasonable time in advance. The note remarks in closing that with such an arrangement there would

"

*

* *

be

no compelling necessity for American citizens to travel to Europe in vessels carrying an enemy flag in time of war, and that "in particular the Imperial Government is unable to admit that American citizens can protect an enemy ship through the mere fact of their presence on board."

[Remark.-Germany here proposes the establishment of a modus vivendi comprising, on the one hand, immunity for American ves-, sels on condition that the Federal Government prevent their carrying contraband, and, on the other hand, the torpedoing of merchant ships of belligerents without regard to neutral passengers.]

July 9, 1915-The English passenger steamer Orduna, plying from Liverpool to New York, with 227 passengers, of whom 21 are Americans, is attacked without warning by a German submarine, which fires a torpedo, followed by several shells, without hitting the vessel.

as

July 21, 1915-America replies to the German note of July 8. The note is declared very unsatisfactory," because it fails to indicate the way in which the accepted principles of law and humanity may be applied to the grave matter in controversy, but proposes, on the contrary, arrangements for a partial suspension of those principles. It is vain for the German Government to seek to justify its acts by representing them reprisals against illegal acts by England. On the one hand, the United States cannot discuss the policy of England save with the British Government itself, and, on the other hand, reprisals directed against the enemy ought not to harm the lives or property of neutrals. The American Government is ready to take into account the new aspects of naval warfare, but cannot assent to the diminution of any essential or fundamental right of its citizens. "The rights of neutrals in time of war are based on principle, not upon expediency, and the principles are immutable." The American Government cannot accept the suggestion that "certain vessels shall 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 council every nation would concede as of course." The American Government concludes by declaring that "repetition by the commanders of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of these rights must be regarded by the Government of the United