steamer Seward, 3,390 tons, was sunk in the Mediterranean April 7. On April 5 there came news of the sinking of two Belgian relief ships, the Trevier from New York and the Feistein; the latter was 2,991 tons, the Trevier 3,001. On April 9 the loss of the Belgian relief ship Camilla was sunk with a cargo of foodstuffs, making four relief ships destroyed in five weeks, with 17,000 tons of food. On April 10 it was reported by the State Department that up to April 3, 1917, German submarines had sunk during the war 686 neutral vessels, including 19 American, and attacked unsuccessfully 79 others, including 8 American. Since the German war zone decree went into effect on Feb. 1 more than one-third of the vessels sunk were neutral, and a large number of other neutral vessels were terrorized into staying in port. The neutral vessels sunk were as follows: Norwegian, 410; Swedish, 111; Dutch, 61; Greek, 50; Spanish, 33; American, 19; Peruvian, 1; Argentine, 1; Total, 686. Neutral vessels attacked and escaped: Norwegian, 32; Swedish, 9; Danish, 5; Greek, 8; Spanish, 2; Argentine, 1; Brazilian, 1; American, 8. Total, 79. The British Admiralty reported sinkings in the five weeks ended April 1, 1917, to have been 80 vessels of over 1,600 tons each, 41 under 1,600 tons, and 43 smaller vessels. During the week ended April 8, 1917, the sinkings reported by the British Admiralty were: Vessels over 1,600 tons, 16; under 1,600 tons, 2; vessels arriving and sailing from United Kingdom in same period, 4,773. During the week ended April 15 the Admiralty reported the loss of 19 vessels of more than 1,600 tons, 9 less than 1,600, also 12 fishing vessels. The Wind of Freedom By JOHN GALSWORTHY A wind in the world! The dark departs, The chains now rust that crushed men's flesh and bones; Feet tread no more the mildewed prison stones, And slavery is lifted from your hearts. A wind in the world! O company Of darkened Russia, watching long in vain, Now shall you see the cloud of Russia's pain Go shrinking out across a Summer sky. A wind in the world-but God shall be In all the future left no kingly doll, Decked out with dreadful sceptre, steel, and stole, A wind in the world-and doubts are blown A wind in the world! Now truancy From the true self is ended; to her part A wind in the world-and we have come Vision doth move at last and freedom stands H Submarine Controversy OLLAND, more than any other neutral, has felt the effects of the war's cross-fire of trade restriction and destruction of shipping. The little nation's geographical position exposes it to interference by both warring groups. The drastic means adopted by Great Britain to prevent the Germans from importing foodstuffs and raw material would alone have been sufficient to cause privation, but when to this is added the havoc wrought by the German submarines at the expense of the Netherlands merchant marine the state of affairs becomes still more distressful. Even there the menace does not end. Since the beginning of the war Holland has had to be prepared to defend her neutrality by guarding her land frontier and by keeping the mouth of the Scheldt closed against any attempt to make Antwerp a base of submarine and other naval operations. In addition to the large force concentrated at Antwerp the Germans have recently had five army corps massed on their Dutch frontier. Nor has the problem of dealing with the hundreds of thousands of Belgians who fled into Holland from the invaders been a light one. In the circumstances it was not practicable or expedient for Holland to follow the example set by the United States when the new submarine campaign began. Nevertheless, while unable to break off relations with Germany, the Netherlands Government lost no time in protesting in the most vigorous manner, as will be seen from the following note, dated Feb. 7, 1917, which was addressed by J. Loudon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the German Minister at The Hague: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the note of Jan. 31 last, A 390, in which your Excellency informed me that the Imperial Government sees itself forced to abolish the restrictions which it has applied until now to its methods of warfare at sea. This note was accompanied by a memorandum containing details of the naval measures to be adopted not only in the North Sea, the Channel, and a part of the Atlantic Ocean, but also in the Mediterranean. These measures are summed up in the establishment of two vast maritime zones, in which trade under any flag, neutral or enemy, will be stopped by force of arms, and in which ships will be exposed to destruction. As far as the North Sea is concerned the zone is outlined in such a way as to leave a free passage for Dutch navigation, but on the other hand in the eastern portion of the Mediterranean the way is entirely barred between Port Said and the track drawn from Gibraltar to Greece, so that the route to the East Indies, which is essential to Holland as a colonial power, is cut. The Queen's Government has in the course of the war more than once explained how it regards the arbitrary delimitation by the belligerent powers of a part of the sea as a zone reserved for military operations, in which commercial traffic is exposed to danger. Thus the Government protested, in a note, dated Nov. 16, 1914, to the British Minister, against the designation of the North Sea as a military zone in which merchant ships and fishing boats would be at least in danger by observing strictly the indications furnished by the British Admiralty. Similarly, the Dutch Government protested in a memorandum, dated Feb. 12, 1915, against the proclamation by the German Government of a large portion of the North Sea and the Channel as a zone of war. In these two cases the Queen's Government pointed out that, according to the law of nations, only the immediate sphere of action of the belligerents' military operations constitutes a military zone in which a belligerent's Folice power can be exercised. A zone with an area of the whole of the North Sea or of a large part of this sea and the Channel could not, in its opinion, be considered as an immediate sphere of action for operations of war; and in calling such areas military zones a serious blow was struck at the fundamental principle of the freedom of the seas. That the Netherlands Government protested against both the above-mentioned cases is only a reason more why it is obliged to protest most energetically against the system now instituted by your Excellency's Government, a system which not only extends over much vaster areas but which also suggests premeditated attack on neutral vessels, whatever their cargo or destination, and without distinction as to whether their presence in the aforesaid areas is voluntary or due to circumstances independent of their will. Even if the Imperial Government had de scribed as a blockade the measures which it had just adopted, the merciless destruction of every neutral ship proceeding to or leaving an enemy port would be contrary to the law of nations, which recognizes only the confiscation and not the destruction of ships trying to break a blockade. Moreover, the term "blockade," [" blocus ""' in the French original of this document,] which the Imperial Government has rightly avoided using, could evidently not be applied to the immense stretch of sea covered by each of the two zones of military operations indicated in the memorandum which your Excellency has transmitted to me; much less so, since, from the standpoint of international law, a blockade is directed solely against traffic to and from an adversary's ports and in no case against navigation directly between two neutral countries. Now, in the aforesaid zones the Imperial Navy has received orders to destroy all ships it meets without making the least distinction between those proceeding to or leaving an enemy port and those which are on the way between two neutral ports without touching at an enemy port. Faithful to the principle which it has constantly upheld during this war, the Queen's Government can see in the destruction of neutral vessels by belligerents only a violation of the established law of nations, to say nothing of the wrong against the laws of humanity if such destruction is to take place without any regard for the safety of the people on board. The responsibility for the destruction of Dutch ships which may eventuate in the zones under discussion and for the loss of human lives which would be involved will fall on the German Government. Its responsibility will be particularly heavy in the cases which are to be foreseen where vessels are forced to enter the danger zone by warships of an adversary exercising the right of visit and search. To this protest Germany paid no attention. On Feb. 22 seven Dutch steamships sailing from Falmouth, England, were attacked by a German submarine a few hours after they left port. Six of the vessels, the Noorderdijk, Zaandijk, Jacatra, Bandoeng, Gaasterland, and Eemland, representing a total of over 30,000 tons, were sunk-without loss of life. The seventh, the Menado, was damaged, but towed back to port. Three, in ballast, were outward bound to America, and the others homeward bound with cargoes consisting mainly of foodstuffs. They had arrived at Falmouth on various dates and had been released by the British authorities at the special request of the Netherlands Government in the belief that the German submarines would leave the ships unmolested. A storm of indignation swept through Holland, but the German Government refused to accept the blame. Foreign Secretary Zimmermann, replying to a question in the Reichstag on Feb. 28, said: In the name of the Government I express regret at the accident which occurred a few days ago to Dutch boats. On our part, however, nothing was left undone to prevent it. In no way is the Imperial Government blamable. The Dutch shipowners naturally desired to get their ships out of English ports. Doubtless they were not ready to sail on Feb. 10, up to which date they could have gone with full security. Then we put before them the dates Feb. 22 and March 17, stating expressly and formally that on the previous date the ships would have only relative security, while positive security could be guaranteed for March 17. The reason for this was that the possibility existed that on the earlier date submarines, being already en route, they might not all receive our message granting safe conduct to the Dutch vessels. When the Dutch owners, notwithstanding our reiterated warnings, decided in favor of the earlier date, the Minister of Marine did everything in his power to communicate the order to all submarines. But it appears he was not successful, for, although a complete report on the incident has not yet been received, it appears established that the sinkings are attributable to a German submarine. I can only repeat regrets of the Admiralty that the Dutch merchant marine has lost precious ships. The incident proves how dangerous it is to navigate the prohibited zones, and gives expression to our wish that neutral navigators cease to cross the zone, and remain in their ports. Thus they really serve their own interests and contribute effectively to the desired end that freedom of the seas be rapidly established. The German Government also tried to appease Dutch anger by offering to replace the seven ships with German freighters. A Dutch Foreign Office statement issued on March 23 explained that the German Government on March 6 offered to pay an indemnity for the loss of members of the crews and to help the owners by facilitating the purchase of German ships after the war. This offer was made on considerations of humanity and good neighborship." Further steps led to a reconsideration of the offer by Germany, who then suggested that Holland rent German ships on reasonable conditions." The Dutch Government rejected the offer, and the owners of the ships that had been sunk in the 66 circumstances also refused to accept the proposal of indemnification for the crews. 66 In Great Britain the view was held that, despite the protests made by Holland, that country was accepting" whatever Germany dictates " and was indorsing Germany's ruthless action by acquiescing in illegal submarine warfare on neutrals," and that, therefore, it was out of the question for Holland to expect facilities or consideration from Great Britain. These words were used in a statement issued in London on March 7 and were inspired by the fact that since the new German submarine campaign had begun Holland had held up practically all its shipping, thereby depriving England of the food supplies normally received from Holland. The refusal of the authorities at Rotterdam to permit the British merchant steamer Princess Melita to enter the harbor because it was armed provided another bone of contention between the British and Dutch Governments. On March 9, however, when the Princess Melita put in an appearance for the third time after having thrown its armament overboard, it was permitted to berth. It was supposed that the Princess Melita had been sent for the purpose of giving the British Government the excuse to reopen the whole question of armed merchantmen. The Dutch Government, in its Orange Book of October, 1915, had defined its attitude as one prohibiting all armed merchantmen from entering its ports. The German military menace on the eastern frontier and Great Britain's control of the sea easily accounted for Holland's indecision. Germany wanted armed merchantmen barred altogether, while Great Britain demanded that they should be admitted to Dutch ports in return for the facilities extended to Dutch vessels in avoiding German submarine dangers. At the end of March the British Government insisted that a certain percentage of Dutch merchant tonnage should carry cargoes to British destinations, and on the Dutch Government refusing it was reported that forty Dutch steamers in British ports were to be confiscated, if they could not be acquired otherwise. Many of these vessels had been detained from six to eight weeks. The holding back of the grain in their holds intensified the food shortage in Holland, where a rule reducing the bread ration went into operation on April 2. The situation created by Germany's new submarine campaign had thus in the course of a couple of months developed several new issues, with the result that there was also a growth of hostile feeling against Great Britain. America's entry into the war brought a change over the whole aspect of things, but at this writing Holland's attitude is undefined. Progress of the War Recording Campaigns on All Fronts and Collateral Events From March 19 Up to and GERMAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS On March 21, a few days after the sinking of the American ships Vigilancia, City of Memphis, and Illinois by German submarines, President Wilson issued a proclamation calling Congress in extra session on April 2. On March 24 he ordered the withdrawal from Belgium of Minister Whitlock, all American Consular officials, and American members of the Commission for Relief in Belgium. Mr. Whitlock and most of the relief workers left Brussels for Switzerland on April 2, but a few Americans who were working where the Including April 18, 1917 German Army was in operation, by agreement, remained two weeks to prevent military disclosures. The State Department formally refused Germany's request to extend the PrussianAmerican treaties of 1799 and 1828. President Wilson addressed the Congress on April 2, asking that body to declare that Germany had been making war upon the United States. A resolution recognizing and declaring a state of war was passed by both houses. President Wilson signed it April 6 and at the same time issued a proclamation notifying the world that war had been begun and warning alien enemies to keep the peace. Defensive war zones around the coasts of the United States were announced in an executive order. A $7,000,000,000 war loan bill providing for a loan of $3,000,000,000 to the Allies was passed by Congress. On April 15 President Wilson issued a proclamation to the people setting forth the necessity for the mobilization of all the industrial forces of the nation to help win the war. Another proclamation, issued April 16, warned alien enemies against committing treasonable acts. The United States destroyer Smith reported that she was attacked by a German submarine on April 17 off the Atlantic Coast. Several American ships were sunk by German submarines. SUBMARINE BLOCKADE On March 23 Germany declared a submarine blockade of the Arctic coast of Russia. The British Admiralty announced that twenty-four British steamers were sunk in the war zone in the week ended March 18, nineteen in the week ended April 8, and nineteen in the week ended April 15. A dispatch from Berlin dated March 26 reported that twenty-five steamships, fourteen sailing vessels, and thirty-seven trawlers had been sunk within a few days. An additional list of thirty-four vessels sunk in March was given out April 1. Seven Italian ships were sunk without warning in the week ended April 15. The Norwegian Legation in London announced that in February and March 105 Norwegian vessels of over 228,000 tons were sunk and 106 persons killed and 222 missing. An official tabulation given out by the United States Government showed 686 neutral vessels, including 18 American, sunk by German submarines from the beginning of the war up to April 3. Two Danish steamers were sunk outside the barred zone. American losses for the month included the armed steamer Aztec and the unarmed ships Missourian and Seward. The schooner Marguerite was captured and presumably sunk. Two British hospital ships, the Asturias and the Gloucester Castle, were sunk. The British steamer Alnwick Castle was torpedoed 320 miles from land. Four boats containing passengers reached Spain with ten dead. Other British losses included the horse transport Canadian and the steamships Crispin, Eptafolos, and Snowdon Range. Three Belgian relief ships, the Camilla, the Trevier, and the Feistein were sunk and two others, the Tunisie and the Haelen, were attacked. Spain protested against the sinking of the Spanish steamer San Fulgencio without warning and demanded an indemnity. Later the Spanish steamer Tom was sunk, also without warning. Brazi! severed relations with Germany after the sinking of the steamer Parana in which three lives were lost, and seized all German ships in Brazilian ports. Argentina, on April 10, issued a declaration announcing that the Government supported the position of the United States with reference to Germany. A few days later two Argentine ships, the transport Pamra and the sailing vessel Oriana, were sunk. Germans were ordered from a suburb of Buenos Aires, and German ships in Argentine waters, which were found to be damaged, were placed under guard. Mobs in Argentina destroyed much German property. Guatemala protested to Germany against the blockade note of Feb. 1. Cuba announced on April 7 that a state of war existed with Germany, and German ships in Havana Harbor were seized. Panama announced her support of the United States. Costa Rica declared her approval of United States course. Mexico declared neutrality; also Chile; Bolivia severed relations with Germany; Paraguay and Uruguay declared neutrality. CAMPAIGN IN EASTERN EUROPE March 23-Russians regain positions near the Beresina River east of Lida. March 24-Russians prepare to meet huge concentration of Germans on the northern front. March 27-Germans force Russians back by gas attacks in the Baranovichi region. April 1-Russians repel repeated Austrian attacks near Kirlibaba. April 4-Germans defeat the Russians and cross the Stokhod River near Helenin; capture Toboly bridgehead. April 6-Germans occupy part of Russian trenches east of Plakanen, but are driven out by counterattack. April 14-Germans bombard Brody. CAMPAIGN IN WESTERN EUROPE March 19-Germans retreat over eighty-fivemile front extending from south of Arras to Soissons; French take Ham, Guiscard, and Chauny; British advance slowly; Germans make slight gains at Verdun between Avocourt and Dead Man Hill. March 20-French occupy Tergnier and reach the outskirts of Roupy; ruins of Coucyle-Chateau destroyed by Germans; French beat off German attacks on the left bank of the Meuse. March 21-Germans make a stand on the Arras-Cambrai-St. Quentin-La Fère line; French cross the Somme Canal at two |