9 It is a war against all nations. American ships have been sunk, American lives taken,10 in ways which it has stirred us very deeply to learn of, but the ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations" have been sunk and overwhelmed in the waters in the same way. There has been no discrimination. 9 American vessels sunk by submarines following German decree of ruthless submarine policy, Jan. 31, 1917. Following eight or more American vessels which had been sunk or attacked earlier, in most cases in contravention to international law, these ships also had been sunk following the repudiation of her pledges by Germany: February 3, 1917, Housatonic. February 13, 1917, Lyman M. Law. March 16, 1917, Vigilancia. March 17, 1917, City of Memphis. March 17, 1917, Illinois. March 21, 1917, Healdton (claimed to have been sunk off Dutch coast, and far from the so-called "prohibited zone. '') April 1, 1917, Aztec. March 2, 1917, Algonquin. Furthermore, no American should forget the sinking of the William P. Frye on January 28, 1915, by a German raider. This act under normal circumstances would be a casus belli. The raider, the Prinz Eitel Friedrich, then impudently took refuge in an American port. 10 American lives lost on the ocean during the war. (See Cong. Rec., 65th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1006.) American lives have been lost during the sinking of at least 20 vessels, whereof 4 were American, 1 Dutch, and 1 Norwegian. In one or two cases the vessel tried to escape and made resistance, and the loss of life was possibly excusable for the Germans. In the bulk of the cases the destruction was without fair warning and without reason. able effort to give the passengers and crew chance to escape. Among the more flagrant cases were: May 7, 1915, Lusitania, 114 Americans lost. March 16, 1917, Vigilancia, 5 Americans lost (United States). April 1, 1917, Aztec, 28 Americans lost (United States). Some on Aztec probably not American citizens, although she was a regular American ship. In all, up to declaration of war by us, 226 American citizens, many of them women and children, had lost their lives by the action of German submarines, and in most instances without the faintest color of international right. 11 The Norwegian Legation at London has announced that during February and March, 1917, 105 Norwegian vessels of over 228,000 tons have been sunk, and 106 persons thereon killed, and 222 are missing. On February 22, 1917, seven Dutch vessels which left an English port on promise of "relative security" from the Berlin authorities were all attacked by German 5340°-17- -2 U-boats and six of them were sunk. Germany has admitted that its boats did the deed, and has expressed "regrets'' to Holland, although adding blandly "the incident proves how dangerous it is to navigate the prohibited zone, and gives expression to our wish that neutral navigators remain in their ports. As a result of this policy of terrorism, the ships of Holland have been practically driven off the seas. Many of them have taken refuge in harbors of the United States. Spaniards have been exasperated by the destruction of their vessels, the most recent instance being that of a Spanish ship, with a Spanish cargo, sunk in Spanish waters. Swedish over-sea commerce is practically ruined by the fear of their owners at the indiscriminate ruthlessness of the submarine. The United States Government made an official estimate that by April 3, 1917, no less than 686 neutral vessels had been sunk by German submarines since the beginning of the war. This did not include any American vessels. (New York Times History of the War, May, 1917, pp. 239 and 241.) The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it.12 The choice we make for ourselves must be made with a moderation of counsel and a temperateness of judgment befitting our character and our motives as a Nation. We must put excited feelings away. Our motive will not be revenge or the victorious assertion of the physical might of the Nation, but only the vindication of right,13 of human right, of which we are only a single champion. 12 Practically all the civilized neutral countries of the earth have protested at the German policy. Some, like Brazil, China, Bolivia. and Guatemala, have broken diplomatic relations with Germany. The neutral states of Europe, fearful of being caught in the horrors of the great war, have protested just as far as they have dared. Holland and Denmark may, of course, at any time see a German Army over their borders. Norway and Sweden are hardly in a safe position, but they have made their vehement protest at the German outrages. Spain, which had exercised a forbearance similar to that of the United States, has finally, after futile protests, been obliged (May 18, 1917) to send Germany a note in the nature of an ultimatum, demanding reparation for the past and guaranties for the future. 13 Submarines are such exceptional instruments of warfare that it is held by authorities on international law that they ought never to submerge in neutral waters, otherwise it is impossible for a neutral to control them and be responsible for them as with ordinary visiting warships. Says Prof. Theodore S. Woolsey, of Yale, a very high authority. 66 * * * I think there can be no doubt that the U-boat is to be regarded as a surface cruiser with no additional rights and privileges and with the same duties and liabilities. Hence in neutral waters it should not submerge. Submergence imperils neutrality by making the performance of neutral duties more arduous and the evasion of neutral rights easier." (American Journal of International Law, January, 1917, p. 139.) When I addressed the last I thought it would Congress on the 26th of February suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms, our right to use the seas against unlawful interference, our right to keep our people safe against unlawful violence. But armed neutrality, it it now appears, is impracticable.1 Because submarines are in effect outlaws, when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks, as the law of nations has assumed that merchantmen would defend themselves against privateers or cruisers, visible craft giving chase upon the open sea. It is common prudence in such circumstances, grim necessity indeed, to endeavor to destroy them before they have shown their own intention. They must be dealt with upon sight, if dealt with at all. 14 In 1798, on account of the attacks on our commerce by French cruisers and privateers, Congress empowered President John Adams to arm merchant vessels, to let them defend themselves, and to let our warships attack the offending French vessels. There were several really serious naval battles (especially when the U. S. S. Constellation took the French frigate L'Insurgente, 1799), and international experts are of the opinion that very probably an actual state of war existed. In any case the country was headed straight into war, and preparations were being made to raise a strong army with Washington again as commander. Then at the last moment, Napoleon, who had just come to power, had the wisdom to offer terms President Adams could accept. The German Imperial Government had no such wisdom or restraint. 15 The German Government denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed even in the defence of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend. The intimation is conveyed that the armed guards which we have placed on our merchant ships will be treated as beyond the pale of law and subject to be dealt with as pirates would be. Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual; it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we can not make we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated.16 The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life. 15 Before the outbreak of the war the following were the standing orders in the German Navy for dealing with even enemy merchant vessels, and if that was the case how much more consideration should be given to neutrals. The new German orders are a brazen contradiction of their own previous precepts. General orders of German Admiralty staff, Berlin, June 22, 1914. (Note date.) "If an armed enemy merchant vessel offers armed resistance . . . such resistance is to be overcome with all means available. . . . The crew are to be taken prisoners of war. The passengers are to be left to go free unless it appears that they participated in the resistance." (German Prize Code, p. 75, par. 116.) "Before proceeding to the destruction of the [neutral] vessel [which has been seized for proper reason], the safety of all persons on board, and, so far as possible, their effects, is to be provided for . . . (German Prize Code, p. 68.) Dr. Wehberg (great German authority on international law, quoted in American Journal of Int. Law, Oct. 1916, p. 871.) "The enemy merchant ship has the right of defense against enemy attack, and this right it can exercise against 'visit' (i. e., being stopped and investigated), for this indeed is the first act of capture. The attacked merchant ship can indeed itself seize the overpowered warship as a prize.’ And still again— In Oxford, 1913, at a meeting of the Institute of International Law, at which the representatives of Germany, as well as of all other great nations, were present, it was decided as a firm principle that private vessels may not commit acts of hostility against the enemy and that they may defend themselves against the attack of an enemy vessel. (American Journal of International Law, vol. 10, 1916, p. 868.) 16 Right of American citizens to protection in their doings abroad and on the seas no less than at home. Decided by Supreme Court of United States. (Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall., 36.) "Every citizen may demand the care and protection of the United States when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign Government.'' See Cooley's Principles of Constitutional Law, third edition, page 273 (standard authority). Obviously a Government which can not or will not protect its citizens against a policy of lawless murder is unworthy of respect abroad or obedience at home. The protection of the lives of the innocent and law-abiding is clearly the very first duty of a civilized state. With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it involves but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that it take immediate steps not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense, but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources 17 to bring the Government of the German Empire to terms and end the war. 17 Wars do not have to be declared in order to exist. The mere commission of warlike or unfriendly acts commences them. Thus the first serious clash in the Mexican war took place April 24, 1846. Congress "recognized" the state of war only on May 11 of that year. Already Gen. Taylor had fought two serious battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. Many other like cases could be cited; the most recent was the outbreak of the war between Japan and Russia. In 1904 the Japanese attacked the Russian fleet before Port Arthur, and only several days after this battle was war “recognized.'' If the acts of Germany were unfriendly war in the strictest sense existed when the President addressed Congress. What this will involve is clear. It will involve the utmost practicable cooperation in counsel and action with the Governments now at war with Germany, and as incident to that, the extension to those Governments of the most liberal financial credits, in order that our resources may so far as possible be added to theirs. It will involve the organization and mobilization of all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the Nation in the most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. It will involve the immediate full equipment of the Navy in all respects but particularly in supplying it with the best means of dealing with the enemy's submarines. It will involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States,18 already provided for by law in case of war, of at least 500,000 men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training. It will involve also, of course, the granting of adequate credits 18 to the Government, sustained, I hope, so far as they can equitably be sustained by the present generation, by well-conceived taxation. 18 Bills passed by Congress, with dates on which they were presented to President: Apr. 5. S. J. Res. 1.. Declaration of war. 17. H. R. 12.... Deficiency appropriation bill for the year ending June, 1917. 23. H. R. 2762.. Bond-issue bill. 23. H. R. 2339.. Increasing number of midshipmen at Annapolis. |