to attack merchant vessels of any nationality except to enforce the right of visit and search." (Statement No. 30.)

In its reply of March 1, 1915, the German government stated its willingness to acquiesce in the American suggestions contingent upon the abandonment by Great Britain and its Allies of the practice of arming merchant vessels. The British note of March 15, 1915, gave the answer of the Allies to the American effort at compromise. In the refusal to assent to alteration of a well-established practice the British government made impossible the acceptance of the modus vivendi.

The American government in a note of March 30, 1915, denied the legality of the sweeping changes made by the British in their Orders in Council. The British must be prepared "to make full reparation for every act which under the rules of international law constitutes a violation of neutral rights." 1 In absence of an agreement by the belligerents upon an alteration in established practice the United States fell back upon its original and basic position, an insistence upon international law as it stood at the opening of the war. Upon such a position it built its protests.2

Aside from the fact that it was the German government, not that of Great Britain, which had threatened the

1 Ibid., No. 1, p. 69.

2 American position on status of armed merchant vessels was given in memorandum of Department of State issued September 19, 1914. Text, American Journal of International Law, IX, Supplement, 121.

most drastic changes in the rules, there was in the manner of the British enforcement of their Orders in Council an additional reason for the American willingness to leave grievances against Great Britain to adjudication by courts. The British decrees were enforced, in an accordance with dictates of humanity, without risk to neutral ships, cargoes or passengers. Moreover, there had been concluded during the past six months with Great Britain, France and Russia treaties providing for commissions of inquiry for treatment of "any differences . . . of whatever nature." The third of these, that with Russia, had been proclaimed on March 25, 1915. No such treaties had been made with Germany and Austria.1

DUTIES OF THE UNITED STATES

On April 8, 1915, the President restated with considerable emphasis his oft-repeated insistence upon neutrality in word and deed. (Statement No. 31.) The utter

ance indicated, however, a change, slight indeed, in the President's attitude toward the formulation of an American judgment upon the practices and purposes of the belligerent governments. He seemed conscious, also, of a danger involved in seeming to restrain the opinion of mankind or, more particularly, that of a large majority of his own countrymen. High as he held the wisdom of American non-participation and he was presently to hold it at great cost to his prestige as a leader - he

1 For treatment of the effect of these treaties upon relations of United States with the nations at war see American Journal of International Law, IX, 494.

seemed to feel the irksomeness of his admonition to be neutral. Naturally a neutral attitude became less easy to maintain, however desirable it might continue to be, when one of the belligerents threatened the lives of neutrals.1

To the members of the Associated Press he admitted on April 20, 1915, that he spoke to them with restraint, where he preferred that it might have been otherwise. "There have been times," said he, "when I stood in this spot and said what I really thought, and I pray God that those days of indulgence may be accorded me again.” (Statement No. 33.) He felt, as he said, that there was approaching a climax in the affairs of the world. This climax would bring to the severest test, not only the European belligerents, but also the people and government of the United States.

The President struck a new note in his interpretation of neutrality. He still maintained that judgment by the United States was preposterous, but he asserted that the basis of neutrality was not found in indifference nor in self-interest, but in sympathy for mankind. In spite of his desire to refrain from passing judgment, but in furtherance of his hope of an American mediation, he was not unwilling at this time to give greater currency to the idea that the United States was ready as no other nation was "to form some part of the assessing opinion of the world."

1 On this same day, April 8, 1915, a steamer in the service of the American Commission for the Relief of Belgium was torpedoed and fifteen lives were lost.

Although awaiting a day when American participation in the negotiations would be welcomed, the President pointed out that the American people, made up of many nations, were in an advantageous position to understand all nations. He recalled that they had already shown their disinterestedness in the administration of the affairs of other peoples. The President could have pointed to his policy in the Philippines, and perhaps he had his course in Mexico in mind, although he said nothing of either. "We do not want anything," he said, " that does not belong to us. Isn't a nation in that position free to serve other nations . . .?"

Aptly as the title "America first" fitted this address, it was in reality a call to a field of service wider than the boundaries of the United States. This call met with a generous response in the United States. The President was interpreted, quite generally, as coveting an opportunity for the United States to act as a mediator at the close of hostilities, but, even limited in such a way, the suggestion gave impetus to a sentiment that was in need of aid. No paragraph, perhaps, gave more heart to that segment of American opinion which was losing faith in the patient policy of the President than that in which he spoke of nations as men. He desired for America that splendid courage of reserve moral force" which impels a nation to withhold its hand until the time when physical force alone would wipe out wrongdoing.

66

On the day following this address, April 21st, the

American government made reply to a communication from the German government dated April 4, 1915. In this communication the German government had impugned the good faith of the United States as a neutral, specifying the alleged submission to British infringement upon American rights, and had plainly asked for an embargo upon arms.1 As the American reply stated, the position of the American government had already been made abundantly clear. (Statement No. 34.) But again the American government restated its refusal to alter well recognized practices in time of war. Nor did its note minimize, as did the German contention, the importance of making a record of protest against British invasions of American rights. This note, prepared by the President himself, concluded with these words: "This Government holds, as I believe Your Excellency is aware, and as it is constrained to hold in view of the present indisputable doctrines of accepted international law, that any change in its own laws of neutrality during the progress of a war, which would affect unequally the relations of the United States with the nations at war would be an unjustifiable departure from the principle of strict neutrality by which it has consistently sought to direct its actions, and I respectfully submit that none of the circumstances urged in Your Excellency's memorandum alters the principle involved. The placing of

1 For text of memorandum see Department of State, Diplomatic Correspondence, European War Series, No. 1, p. 73.