Taken all in all, these facts, supporting the message, and many more that of course could be added, constitute something like "the case for America against Germany,” and Americans after examining this case may rest well assured that their cause will be justified by the calm, impartial verdict of later-day history.

The plan and much of the work are due to Prof. William Stearns Davis, of the history department of the University of Minnesota. He was very materially assisted by his colleagues, Prof. C. D. Allin and Dr. Wm. Anderson. Whether this evidence is valid can be tested by anybody with access to a good public library, for no secret documents have been used. The annotations represent a wholly volunteer service on the part of competent and patriotic scholars.

The Committee on Public Information has had the assistance of the National Board for Historical Service in editing the manuscript.

The Committee believes that pending the appearance of a more elaborate and official Government statement, the publication of this annotated copy of the President's address will serve a real national purpose.

Copies of this document and of other publications may be had free on request.
For the Committee on Public Information.

GUY STANTON FORD,

Director of the Division on Civic and Educational Cooperation.

THE WAR MESSAGE AND FACTS BEHIND IT.

GENTLEMEN OF THE CONGRESS:

I have called the Congress into extraordinary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy1 to be made, and made immediately, which it is neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility of making.

2

1 There had been only two other periods in the history of the country equally serious-1776 and 1861. Nobody can pretend that there have been any other crises in American history (barring the Revolution and the Civil War) when so much that citizens of this country count dear has been at stake. The War of 1812, the Mexican and Spanish Wars, seem as child's play beside the present exigency. Now, as this message makes clear, the very liberties of the world and the possibilities of peaceful democracies are at stake. If Germany should win this war, and thus become supreme on land and sea, the very existence of free democracies would be imperiled.

2 President Wilson had the sworn duty to lay the facts before Congress and recommend to it the needful action. The Constitution of the United States prescribes his duties in such emergencies.

It is worthy of note that the Constitution lays this duty and power of declaring war directly upon Congress, and that it can not be evaded by Congressmen by any referendum to the voters, for which not the slightest constitutional provision is made.

Congress performed this duty by voting on the war question as requested. The vote of the Senate was 82 to 6 for war; of the House 373 to 50. Such comparative unanimity upon so momentous a question is almost unparalleled in the history of free nations.

On the 3d of February last I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government, that on and after the 1st day of February it was its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and

use

its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of of Germany within the Mediterranean.3 That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft, in conformity with its promise,

4

then given to us, that passenger boats should not be sunk, and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats. The precautions taken were meager and haphazard enough, as was proved in distressing instance after instance in the progress of the cruel and unmanly business, but a a certain degree of restraint was

observed.5

3 The German Chancellor in announcing this repudiation of all his solemn pledges in the Imperial Parliament (Reichstag), on January 31, frankly admitted that this policy involved "ruthlessness'' toward neutrals. "When the most ruthless methods are considered the best calculated to lead us to victory and to a swift victory they must be employed.

*
*

*

*

*

*

The moment has now arrived. Last August [when he was, as he himself here admits, allowing the American people to believe that in response to its protest he had laid aside such ruthless methods] the time was not yet ripe, but to-day the moment has come when, with the greatest prospect of success, we can undertake this enterprise."

4 The broken Sussex pledge. On May 4, 1916, the German Government, in reply to the protest and warning of the United States following the sinking of the Sussex, gave this promise: That "merchant vessels both within and without the area declared a naval war zone shall not be sunk without warning, and without saving human lives, unless the ship attempt to escape or offer resistance.'

Germany added, indeed, that if Great Britain continued her blockade policy, she would have to consider "" a new situation.”

On May 8, 1916, the United States replied that it could not admit that the pledge of Germany was "in the slightest degree contingent upon the conduct of any other Government' (i. e., on any question of the English blockade). To this Germany made no reply at all, and under general diplomatic usage, when one nation makes a statement to another, the latest statement of the case stands as final unless there is a protest made.

The promise made by Germany thus became a binding pledge, and as such was torn up with other "scraps of paper" by the German "unlimited submarine warfare" note of January 31, 1917.

5 As to the proper usages in dealing with merchant vessels in war, here are the rules laid down some time ago for the American Navy (a fighting navy, surely), and these rules hardly differed in other navies, including the Russian and Japanese:

United States Naval War Code, now in preparation, retains and amplifies the following provisions of the Code published in 1900 (p. 48):

"The personnel of a merchant vessel captured as a prize their personal effects.

"All passengers not in the service of the enemy, and all women and children on board such vessels should be released and landed at a convenient port at the first opportunity.

"Any person in the naval service of the United States who pillages or maltreats in any manner, any person found on board a merchant vessel captured as a prize, shall be severely punished."'

United States Naval War College, International Law Topics, 1905, page 62: “If a seized neutral vessel can not for any reason be brought into court for adjudication it should be dismissed."'

United States Naval War Code, on safety required for persons on a captured vessel (United States Naval War College, International Law Topics, 1913, p. 165): “The destruction of a vessel which has surrendered without first removing its officers and crew would be an act contrary to the sense of right which prevails even between enemies in time of war."

And also Lawrence (standard authority on international law), International Law, 1910 edition, page 484: "It is better for a naval officer to release a ship as to which he is doubtful than to risk personal punishment and international complications by destroying innocent property."

The new policy has swept every restriction aside. Vessels of every kind, whatever their flag, their character, their cargo, their destination, their errand, have been ruthlessly sent to the bottom without warning and without thought of help or mercy for those on board, the vessels of friendly neutrals along with those of belligerents. Even hospital ships and ships carrying relief to the sorely bereaved and stricken people of Belgium, though the latter were provided with safe conduct through the proscribed areas by the German Government itself and were distinguished by unmistakable marks of identity, have been sunk with the same reckless lack of compassion or of principle.

6

6 Mr. Wilson was undoubtedly thinking of the cases of the British hospital ships Asturias sunk March 20, and the Gloucester Castle. These vessels had been sunk although protected by the most solemn possible of international compacts. The Germans seem to have acknowledged the sinking of the Asturias and to have regarded their feat with great complacency. Somewhat earlier in the war the great liner Britannic had been sunk while in service as a hospital ship, and the evidence seems to be it was torpedoed by a U-boat, although the proof here is not conclusive. Since this message was written the Germans have continued their policy of murdering more wounded soldiers and their nurses by sinking more hospital ships.

The Belgian relief ships referred to were probably the Camilla, Trevier, and the Feistein, but most particularly the large Norwegian steamer Storstad, sunk with 10,000 tons of grain for the starving Belgians. Besides these sinkings, two other relief ships— the Tunisie and the Haelen-were attacked unsuccessfully.

I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any Government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations." International law had its origin in the attempt to set up some law which would be respected and observed upon the seas, where no nation had right of dominion and where lay the free highways of the world. By painful stage after stage has that law been built up with meager enough results,

indeed, after all was accomplished that could be accomplished, but always with a clear view, at least, of what the heart and conscience of mankind demanded.

7 No nation assuredly has made prouder claims than Germany to a superior "kultur,'' or made louder assertions of its desire to vindicate the freedom of the seas.

66

This minimum of right the German Government has swept aside under the plea of retaliation and necessity and because it had no weapons which it could use at sea except these, which it is impossible to employ, as it is employing them, without throwing to the wind all scruples of humanity or of respect for the understandings that were supposed to underlie the intercourse of the world.

8

I am not now thinking of the loss of property involved, immense and serious as that is, but only of the wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of noncombatants, men women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate. Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people can not be. The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind.

8 Mr. Wilson could have gone further back than "modern history."

Even in the most troubled period of the Middle Ages there was consistent effort to spare the lives of nonbelligerents. Thus in the eleventh century not merely did the church enjoin the "truce of God" which ordered all warfare to cease on four days of the week, but it especially pronounced its curse upon those who outraged or injured not merely clergymen and monks, but all classes of women. We also have ordinances from this "dark period" of history forbidding the interference with shepherds and their flocks, the damaging of olive trees, or the carrying off or destruction of farming implements. All this at a period when feudal barons are alleged to have been waging their wars with unusual ferocity.

Contrast also with the German usages this American instance:

On May 12, 1898, Admiral Sampson with the American fleet appeared before San Juan, P. R., and conducted a reconnoissance in force to see if Cervera's squadron was in the port, but he did not subject the city to a regular bombardment'' because that "would have required due notice' for the removal of the women, children, and the sick. He did this notwithstanding the fact that a sudden attack, well driven home, would probably have given him the city. In the attack on the forts alone, which he actually made, his ship captains were carefully charged to avoid hitting the Spanish military hospital. (See H. Doc. No. 12, 55th Cong., 3d sess., p. 368.)

No one certainly has ever accused the American Navy of "hitting soft" or of being unwilling to wage the most strenuous kind of honorable warfare.