"The Government of the United States, in view of these considerations, which it urges with the greatest respect and with the sincere purpose of making sure that no misunderstanding may arise and no circumstance occur that might even cloud the intercourse of the two Governments, expresses the confident hope and expectation that the Imperial German Government can and will give assurance that American citizens and their vessels will not be molested by the naval forces of Germany otherwise than by visit and search, though their vessels may be traversing the sea area delimited in the proclamation of the German Admiralty."

This protest of the United States, it will be noticed, was based almost entirely on the principle that American vessels could not, by any such order, be kept out of the war zone and little attention was paid to the rights of American citizens on belligerent vessels either as passengers or as members of the crew. As for the rights of American vessels, it may be pointed out here that, under the accepted principles of international law, vessels belonging to a neutral may not be captured and confiscated by a belligerent except when carrying a cargo more than half of which is contraband or when

attempting to violate a blockade. Now, the fundamental principle of a blockade is that in order to be binding, that is, to make legal the confiscation of vessels attempting to pass, it must be effective. Since, during the first nine weeks after the German decree, according to the London Times, British ports had 11,635 arrivals and sailings, and of these only thirty-five steamers were sunk by submarines, it is obvious that the German measure was not binding and nothing more than a "paper blockade." Hence, German submarines and cruisers had the right to capture a neutral vessel only on account of the contraband character of the cargo, and if the right of capture was thus restricted, the right of destruction was still further limited.3

To this communication Germany replied on February 16th in a long memorandum which reviewed at even greater length than the original memorial the basis of such a measure as that contemplated. The note was very polite and attempted to counteract the unfavorable impressions among neutrals which had been

See the discussion of this right in the following chapter.

caused by the first memorandum. Germany, it was said,

"is to all intents and purposes cut off from oversea supplies with the toleration, tacit or protesting, of the neutrals regardless of whether it is a question of goods which are absolute contraband or only conditional contraband or not contraband at all, following the law generally recognized before the outbreak of the war. On the other hand England with the indulgence of neutral Governments is not only being provided with such goods as are not contraband or merely conditional contraband, namely, foodstuffs, raw material, et cetera, although these are treated by England when Germany is in question as absolute contraband, but also with goods which have been regularly and unquestionably acknowledged to be absolute contraband. The German Government believe that they are obliged to point out very particularly and with the greatest emphasis, that a trade in arms exists between American manufacturers and Germany's enemies which is estimated at many hundred million marks.

"The German Government have given due recognition to the fact that as a matter of form the exercise of rights and the toleration of wrong on the part of neutrals is limited by their pleasure alone and involves no formal breach of neutrality. The German Government have not in consequence made any charge

of formal breach of neutrality. The German Government cannot, however, do otherwise, especially in the interest of absolute clearness in the relations between the two countries, than to emphasize that they, in common with the public opinion in Germany, feel themselves placed at a great disadvantage through the fact that the neutral powers have hitherto achieved no success or only an unmeaning success in their assertion of the right to trade with Germany, acknowledged to be legitimate by international law, whereas they make unlimited use of their right to tolerate trade in contraband with England and our other enemies. Conceded that it is the formal right of neutrals not to protect their legitimate trade with Germany and even to allow themselves knowingly and willingly to be induced by England to restrict such trade, it is on the other hand not less their good right, although unfortunately not exercised, to stop trade in contraband, especially the trade in arms, with Germany's enemies."

After six months of "patience and watchful waiting," Germany had been compelled to meet this "murderous method of conducting maritime war with drastic counter measures," and the note declared that

"If England invokes the powers of famine as an ally in its struggle against Germany with the inten

tion of leaving a civilized people the alternative of perishing in misery or submitting to the yoke of England's political and commercial will, the German Government are to-day determined to take up the gauntlet and to appeal to the same grim ally. They rely on the neutrals who have hitherto tacitly or under protest submitted to the consequences, detrimental to themselves, of England's war of famine to display not less tolerance toward Germany, even if the German measures constitute new forms of maritime war, as has hitherto been the case with the English

* Complaint was made particularly that the American ship Wilhelmina, en route to Hamburg, had been seized although the "cargo was destined solely for the civil population of Germany and was to be used only for this purpose according to an express declaration of the German Government.'' But in January, 1915, the Federal Council of Germany decreed that after February 1st, grain and flour imported should be taken over by the Government. Foodstuffs are conditional contraband and are liable to seizure if they are destined for the armed forces. England therefore claimed that in view of this decree all foodstuffs shipped into Germany after February 1st would be liable to seizure, since it would be impossible to distinguish between what was intended for the civilian population and what for the Government. England's action was not considered legal by the United States which protested. It should be said, however, that there was some justification as a measure of reprisal for a decision to consider food absolute contraband since the Dutch vessel Maria, with a cargo of grain for Ireland, was destroyed by the German cruiser Karlsruhe, in September, 1914, without ascertaining the destination of the grain.

"The German Government can not have it both ways,'

'' said