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 certain degree of restraint was observed.5 * * * 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. 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. * * are entitled to "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. "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 shipsthe 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." 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. 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,s 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. 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 nations11 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 reasonable 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). 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 Congress on the 26th of February last I thought it would suffice to assert our neutral rights |