lists of acts which, in our opinion, would justify the state of war which the Congress declared, inasmuch as the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives enumerated and classified the most flagrant of them, in the report presented to the House with the text of the proposed declaration of war, and justifying its adoption, and by this report, the material portion whereof follows, the Congress and the American people must be judged:

The President has asked for the declaration that a state of war exists against Austria-Hungary.

In his address, delivered at the joint session of the two Houses of Congress on December 4, he uses this language:

One very embarrassing obstacle that stands in our way is that we are at war with Germany, but not with her allies. I therefore very earnestly recommend that the Congress immediately declare the United States in a state of war with Austria-Hungary.

The accompanying resolution carries out this recommendation of the President. The enactment of this declaration involved very little readjustment of the affairs between the United States and Austria-Hungary, because a state of war which this declaration declares to exist actually has been a fact for many months. The depredations on American lives and rights by Austrian naval forces has been small compared with that of Germany, but they have been indulged in to an extent to constitute war upon this country, and this fact, taken in connection with other acts of Austria-Hungary, has more and more brought that government into a position where the American people have realized that she must be included with Germany as an enemy.

In September, 1915, it was discovered that Ambassador Dumba and Austrian consuls in St. Louis and elsewhere were implicated in instigating strikes in American manufacturing plants engaged in the production of munitions of war. An American citizen named Archibald, traveling under an American passport, had been intrusted with dispatches in regard to this matter from Dumba and Bernstorff to their governments. These acts were admitted by Dumba. By reason of the admitted purpose and intent of Dumba to conspire to cripple business industries in the United States, and by reason of the flagrant violation of diplomatic propriety in employing an American citizen protected by an American passport as a secret bearer of official dispatches through the lines of an enemy of Austria-Hungary, the Austro-Hungarian Government was requested to recall Dumba.

The Austrian consuls at St. Louis and New York were implicated with Dumba in these transactions, particularly in the circulation of strike propaganda. They were implicated in procuring forged passports from the United States for the use of their countrymen in going home.

Long before the above activities were made public, our government had evidence that the Austrian diplomatic and consular service was being used in this country for Germany's warlike purposes.

1 House Report No. 203, 65th Cong., 2d sess.

While Austria's submarine warfare has been of a very limited character, they have adopted and adhered to the policy of the ruthless submarine warfare of the Imperial German Government.

After diplomatic relations with Germany had been broken, the department on February 14, 1917, dispatched the following telegram to the American Embassy at Vienna, surveying briefly the position of the Austrian Government on submarine warfare:

In the American note of December 6, 1915, to the Austro-Hungarian Government in the Ancona case, this government called attention to the views of the Government of the United States on the operations of submarines in naval warfare which had been expressed in no uncertain terms to the ally of AustriaHungary, and of which full knowledge on the part of the Austro-Hungarian Government was presumed. In its reply of December 15, 1915, the Imperial and Royal Government stated that it was not possessed with authentic knowledge of all of the pertinent correspondence of the United States, nor was it of the opinion that such knowledge would be sufficient to cover the Ancona case, which was of essentially a different character from those under discussion with the Berlin Government. Nevertheless, in reply to the American note of December 19, 1915, the Austro-Hungarian Government, in its note of December 29, stated:

"As concerns the principle expressed in the very esteemed note that hostile private ships, in so far as they do not flee or offer resistance, may not be destroyed without the persons on board having been placed in safety, the Imperial and Royal Government is able substantially to assent to this view of the Washington Cabinet."

Moreover, in the case of the Persia, the Austro-Hungarian Government, in January, 1916, stated in effect that while it had received no information with regard to the sinking of the Persia, yet, in case its responsibility were involved, the Government would be guided by the principles agreed to in the Ancona case.

Within one month thereafter, the Imperial and Royal Government, coincidently with the German declaration of February 10, 1916, on the treatment of armed merchantmen announced that "All merchant vessels armed with cannon for whatever purpose, by this very fact lose the character of peaceable vessels,' and that, "Under these conditions orders have been given to Austro-Hungarian naval forces to treat such ships as belligerent vessels."

In accordance with this declaration several vessels with Americans on board have been sunk in the Mediterranean, presumably by Austrian submarines, some of which were torpedoed without warning by submarines flying the Austrian flag, as in the cases of the British steamers Secondo and Welsh Prince. Inquiries made through the American Ambassador at Vienna as to these cases have so far elicited no information and no reply.

Again, on January 31, 1917, coincidently with the German declaration of submarine danger zones in waters washing the coasts of the Entente countries, the Imperial and Royal Government announced to the United States Government that Austria-Hungary and its allies would from February 1 "prevent by every means any navigation whatsoever within a definite closed area."'

From the foregoing it seems fair to conclude that the pledge given in the Ancona case and confirmed in the Persia case is essentially the same as that given in the note of the Imperial German Government dated May 4, 1916, viz., "In accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as a naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance," and that this pledge has been modified to a greater

or less extent by the declarations of the Imperial and Royal Government of February 10, 1916, and January 31, 1917. In view, therefore, of the uncertainty as to the interpretation to be placed upon those declarations, and particularly this latter declaration, it is important that the United States Government be advised definitely and clearly of the attitude of the Imperial and Royal Government in regard to the prosecution of submarine warfare in these circumstances.

Please bring this matter orally to the attention of the Austrian Government and request to be advised as to whether the pledge given in the Ancona and Persia cases is to be interpreted as modified or withdrawn by the declarations of February 10, 1916, and January 31, 1917. If after your conversation it seems advisable, you may hand to the Minister for Foreign Affairs a paraphrase of this instruction, leaving the quoted texts verbatim.

In reply, the Austrian Government, in an aide memoire of March 2, 1917, after reviewing the illegal blockade measures of the allies, stated that "it now as heretofore firmly adheres to the assurances given by it" in the Ancona case.

The Austro-Hungarian Government also stated that Austro-Hungarian submarines had taken no part in the sinking of the British steamers Secondo and Welsh Prince, and that "the assurance which it gave the Washington Cabinet in the Ancona case, and renewed in the Persia case, has neither been withdrawn or restricted by its declarations of February 10, 1916, and January 31, 1917."

The Austro-Hungarian note endeavors, through a legal argument, to show consistency between these assurances and its declarations. In this way the AustroHungarian Government evades a direct answer to the American inquiry, but in its argument it substantially adheres to the declaration of January 31, 1917, for it states that

The entire declaration is essentially nothing else than a warning to the effect that no merchant ship may navigate the sea zones accurately defined in the declaration.

and that

The Imperial and Royal Government is, however, unable to accept a responsibility for the loss of human lives which, nevertheless, may result from the destruction of armed ships or ships encountered in the closed zones.

In view of this acceptance and avowal by the Austrian Government of the policy which had led to a breach of relations between the United States and Germany, the Government of the United States found it impossible to receive Dumba's successor, Count Tarnowski. The government felt that it could not receive a new ambassador from a country which joined Germany in her submarine policy, even though its participation might be by verbal and not physical coöperation. This was communicated to the Austrian Government in a telegram from the Department dated March 28, 1917.

In his message to Congress of April 2, 1917, the President said, in respect to the attitude of Austria-Hungary:

[Here follows the quotation from President Wilson, printed supra, p. 166.]

The Austrian note of January 31, 1917, proclaimed the same submarine policy as that of Germany, and officially announced her intention, if she saw fit, to pursue the same ruthless submarine policy that Germany had inaugurated.

Many vessels have been sunk by submarines in the Mediterranean

the area

in which Austrian submarines operate-by submarines which carried no flag or mark and the nationality of which was unknown. A great many of these undersea craft are believed to have been Austrian submarines or submarines commanded by Austrian officers, or supplied from Austrian bases or by Austrian means.

On April 4, 1917, the American four-masted schooner Marguerite was sunk by submarine 35 miles from the coast of Sardinia, while en route to Spain. The submarine carried no flag or marks to indicate its nationality. It is known, however, that Austrian was the language spoken by the officer of the submarine who came aboard the vessel with the boarding party, and it is believed that the submarine was Austrian.

On November 21, 1917, the Schuylkill was sunk off the coast of Algeria by an Austrian submarine; thus Austria is making, whenever opportunity affords, the same ruthless submarine warfare that Germany is making, in disregard of the promises made this government, in violation of the law of nations and the instincts of humanity, and is as much at war with this country as Germany was after her note of January 31, 1917, and the subsequent sinking of American ships and the drowning of American citizens.

Before war was declared to exist between the United States and the Imperial German Government, it was intimated to the United States Government that if war should be declared by the United States upon Germany, Austria-Hungary would be under obligation to break off diplomatic relations with the United States. Consequently after the declaration of war of April 6, 1917, the Austro-Hungarian Government informed the American chargé at Vienna on April 8 that diplomatic relations between the United States and Austria-Hungary were broken and handed him passports for himself and members of the embassy. The following is a translation of the note handed to the American chargé by the Austrian minister for foreign affairs:

[Here follows the text of the note quoted supra, p. 166.]

Until the present Austro-German drive in northern Italy, the Austrian forces were gradually being driven back by the forces of the Italian armies. With the assistance of German troops drawn from the Russian front, a very serious catastrophe was inflicted upon the Italian arms, which if it had not been stemmed might have resulted in the total collapse of Italy. Such a result would have been a great blow to those with whom we are associated in this war, and as much to the United States as to any of her cobelligerents.

As a result of this situation the Allies have rushed aid to Italy, and the United States is sending ships, money, and supplies, and will probably soon send troops, who will be facing and making war on Austrian soldiers, and before this takes place there should be a declaration of war, this country against Austria-Hungary.

The Italian situation is of the utmost importance in the present conduct of the war. A declaration of war by the United States against Austria-Hungary will hearten the people of Italy, who have been misled by the mischievous and deluding propaganda engineered by the Germans. It will strengthen from a military point of view the whole allied cause. These are strong reasons for a declaration of war against Austria-Hungary.

These considerations, and the fact that Austria-Hungary is adhering to the illegal and inhumane policy of ruthless submarine warfare, and is, as the committee believes, making war upon American vessels and American citizens upon the high seas, and other reasons which are not deemed necessary to recapitulate here, induced the committee to report unanimously the accompanying resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government and the government and people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

The action of the committee was unanimous, and it trusts that the resolution will be adopted unanimously by the House.

In a letter to Lafayette, his comrade in arms in the cause of political liberty, Washington thus wrote of a world in ferment then, and in terms applicable to this world again unfortunately at war:

There seems to be a great deal of bloody work cut out for this summer in the north of Europe. If war, want and plague are to desolate those huge armies that are assembled, who that has the feelings of a man can refrain from shedding a tear over the miserable victims of regal ambition? It is really a strange thing that there should not be room enough in the world for men to live without cutting one another's throats.1

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES

President Washington found himself confronted with a great European War, in which the principal belligerents - Great Britain, on the one hand, and France, on the other seemed equally desirous to force the United States to take a part. The President believed, however, that the safety of the young republic, perhaps its existence, depended upon keeping the country from taking part in a European quarrel in which the United States had, for the most part, but a sentimental interest. He issued a proclamation of neutrality, he caused the neutrality law of June 5, 1794, to be enacted, and by so doing he not only saved the country, for whose independence he was largely responsible, but at the same time laid broad and deep the foundations of neutrality. He was particularly annoyed by the actions of the French Minister, the notorious Citizen Génêt, who claimed the right to fit out and to equip privateers in American waters, to make of American ports bases of operations, and, in prize courts instituted by himself, to pass upon the legality of captures made by the privateers which he had himself fitted out. Then, again, the sovereignty of the United States was violated 1 Sparks, Writings of George Washington, Vol. IX, p. 380.