cured. Austria-Hungary had in general agreed to abide by existing international rules-although contrary to the demands of the first Lusitania note submarines could be used against merchant ships if the safety of those on board was assured-and this pledge was joined in by Germany so far as the Mediterranean operations were concerned. In the socalled war zone around the British Isles the pledges were limited only to "liners" that did not attempt to escape, and while the right of American vessels to traverse this war zone was apparently admitted, Germany did not consider "unfortunate accidents' in sinking them illegal but simply as imposing liability on her under

One other incident caused further exchanges between the United States and Austria-Hungary. On April 11, 1916, the Russian bark Imperator was destroyed by an Austrian submarine in the Mediterranean and an American citizen was wounded. It was explained that after the vessel had been warned by a shot across her bows, no disposition was shown on the part of the crew to abandon her. A second shot was fired through the rigging. The crew then embarked in boats, and of two sailors who had been wounded, neither was an American citizen. According to the ship's papers there was only one American citizen on board, and if, "to the regret of the Austro-Hungarian authorities,'' he was wounded, the explanation was that "the bark failed to comply with the submarine's challenge to stop when ordered.'

the old Prussian treaties. Finally, the measure of safety to be accorded was but poorly defined. Nevertheless, while relinquishing the international spirit of the first Lusitania note that submarines were not adapted for cruiser warfare on commerce, the United States had conceded none of its neutral rights. But all these questions were again opened, with the position of the United States more assailable, by the announcement that after March 1st all armed private ships would be sunk without warning.

CHAPTER VIII

ARMED MERCHANTMEN

AT the outbreak of the war the American Department of State had very definitely passed upon the question of armed merchantmen. The British Embassy at Washington informed the Secretary of State that a certain number of merchantmen had been armed, but solely for defense, and that since the British naval regulations did not permit the conversion of merchantmen into warships on the high seas or in neutral ports, these armed merchantmen did not have even a potential combatant status. These communications were merely acknowledged, but on September 19, 1914, the Department of State issued a comprehensive memorandum defining the status of merchant ships carrying guns.

The memorandum stated that a merchant vessel of belligerent nationality might carry an

armament for the sole purpose of defense without acquiring the character of a ship of war, but that the presence on board of an armament created a presumption that it was for offensive purposes. This might be rebutted by suitable proof that the number of guns was small and that their caliber did not exceed six inches; that they were not mounted on the forward part of the vessel; that the quantity of ammunition was small; that the ship carried only its usual crew; that the purpose to engage in trade, as before the outbreak of war, was clearly evident, only sufficient fuel for this purpose being carried; that the cargo was not suited for a vessel engaging in hostile operations; that passengers were carried, and that the speed of the ship was slow.

Against this ruling Germany protested on the ground that it failed "to comply with the principles of neutrality. This equipment of British merchant vessels with artillery is for the purpose of making armed resistance against German cruisers. Resistance of this sort is contrary to international law, because, in a military sense, a merchant vessel is not permitted to de

fend itself against a war vessel." This protest was received on October 15th and the reply of the United States was made on November 7th. It said that "the practice of a majority of nations and the consensus of opinion by the leading authorities on international law, including many German writers, support the proposition that merchant vessels may arm for defense without losing their private character, and that they may employ such armament against hostile attack without contravening the principles of international law."

Now, this was a vigorous and exact statement of the accepted international law of the question. Chief Justice Marshall in the famous case of the Nereide had decided that a belligerent vessel had a perfect right to arm in selfdefense and that a neutral had a right to transport his goods in such an armed vessel. The armed vessel in this case "had a right to defend herself, did defend herself, and might have captured an assailing vessel; but to search for the enemy would have been a violation of her charter party and of her duty."

The practice of arming ships in self-defense