German notes with the submarine warfare. There is no logical connection, for, while a neutral government may not itself furnish supplies to a belligerent, individuals may engage in such a trade at their own risk. That is to say, the contraband articles which are shipped, and the vessels which carry them are liable to capture and confiscation. This is the sole penalty which international law attempts to impose upon a trade in contraband. The character of a vessel's cargo does not, therefore, furnish any justification for a change in the rule. Those engaged in carrying the contraband cannot be punished; if neutrals, they cannot even be made prisoners of war. The sole penalty, to repeat, is the loss by the owners of the cargo and of the vessel. It is thus seen that it is absolutely immaterial what a particular vessel contains when it is overtaken by a submarine. The sacred immunities of the noncombatants on board are the same, and the taking of their lives cannot be justified on the ground that they are engaged in a traffic, which, however objectionable to one of the belligerents, is recognized by international law. And, in fact, while jus

tifying her submarine warfare on the ground that it was a reprisal for the illegal British Orders in Council, Germany has not claimed that rules of international law and considerations of humanity give her any greater license with regard to the crew or passengers on contraband-carrying boats. The justice of the trade in munitions seems, on the contrary, to have been injected into the diplomatic exchanges for the same reason that the protest against the use of the neutral flag was madeto attempt to coerce the United States into a position which would illegally operate to the detriment of the Allies, with the alternative, for refusal, of an inhuman and illegal disregard for the lives of all noncombatants-neutral as well as enemy-on the high seas.5

'Although it does not seem to have figured in the exchanges, attention may be called to the fact that the Prussian treaties (see above, p. 62) expressly justify a trade in contraband by one of the parties when the other is a belligerent. These treaties have been accepted by Germany as fully binding.

CHAPTER VII

SUBMARINE WARFARE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

THE German pledges which have been described came simultaneously with a marked decrease of the activity of submarines in the waters around Great Britain; and the opinion has already been ventured that perhaps so many had been destroyed that it seemed to the Imperial Government the best plan to accede to the American demands pending the completion of the many and more powerful undersea boats which were contemplated. In the Mediterranean, however, a new campaign was inaugurated, apparently participated in by both German and Austrian submarines. American interests were vitally affected when the Italian liner Ancona, bound from Naples to New York, was sunk in the Mediterranean without warning (November 7th) and more than two hundred passengers lost their lives, among them Ameri

can citizens. After a month's delay in order to be sure of the facts, President Wilson addressed a note-in some respects the strongest of those published-to the Austro-Hungarian Government. He said:

"The Government of the United States considers that the commander violated the principles of international law and of humanity by shelling and torpedoing the Ancona before the persons on board had been put in a place of safety or even given sufficient time to leave the vessel. The conduct of the commander can only be characterized as wanton slaughter of defenseless noncombatants, since at the time when the vessel was shelled and torpedoed she was not, it appears, resisting or attempting to escape; and no other reason is sufficient to excuse such an attack, not even the possibility of rescue."

The United States, therefore, was forced to conclude either that the commander of the submarine failed to act in accordance with his instructions or that Austria-Hungary had not issued to its under-sea boats the same orders that had been announced by Germany "in accordance with the law of nations and the principles of humanity." This latter alternative the

United States was reluctant to believe for it would have

"to credit the Austro-Hungarian Government with an intention to permit its submarines to destroy the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It prefers to believe that the commander of the submarine committed this outrage without authority and contrary to the general or special instructions which he had received.

"As the good relations of the two countries must rest upon a common regard for law and humanity, the Government of the United States cannot be expected to do otherwise than to demand that the Imperial and Royal Government denounce the sinking of the Ancona as an illegal and indefensible act; that the officer who perpetrated the deed be punished; and that reparation by the payment of an indemnity be made for the citizens of the United States who were killed or injured by the attack on the vessel.

"The Government of the United States expects that the Austro-Hungarian Government, appreciating the gravity of the case, will accede to its demand promptly; and it rests this expectation on the belief that the Austro-Hungarian Government will not sanction or defend an act which is condemned by the world as inhumane and barbarous, which is abhorrent to all civilized nations, and which has caused the death of innocent American citizens.'