less of their use, to avail themselves of neutral waters, roadsteads, and harbors." These Governments point out the facility possessed by such craft to avoid supervision or surveillance or determination of their national character and their power "to do injury that is inherent in their very nature," as well as the "additional facilities" afforded by having at their disposal places where they can rest and replenish their supplies. Apparently on these grounds the allied Governments hold that "Submarine vessels must be excluded from the benefit of the rules heretofore accepted under international law regarding the admission and sojourn of war and merchant vessels in neutral waters, roadsteads, or harbors; any submarine of a belligerent that once enters a neutral harbor must be held there," and therefore the allied Governments "warn neutral powers of the great danger to neutral submarines attending the navigation of waters visited by the submarines of belligerents."

In reply the Government of the United States must express its surprise that there appears to be an endeavor of the allied powers to determine the rule of action governing what they regard as a "novel situation" in respect to the use of submarines in time of war and to enforce acceptance of that rule, at least in part, by warning neutral powers of the great danger to their submarines in waters that may be visited by belligerent submarines. In the opinion of the Government of the United States the allied powers have not set forth any circumstances, nor is the Government of the United States at present aware of any circumstances, concerning the use of war or merchant submarines which would render the existing rules of international law inapplicable to them. In view of this fact and of the notice and warning of the allied powers announced in their memoranda under acknowledgment it is incumbent upon the Government of the United States to notify the Governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Japan that, so far as the treatment of either war or merchant submarines in American waters is concerned, the Government of the United States reserves its liberty of action in all respects and will treat such vessels as, in its opinion, becomes the action of a power which may be said to have taken the first steps toward establishing the principles of neutrality and which for over a century has maintained those principles in the traditional spirit and with the high sense of impartiality in which they were conceived.

In order, however, that there should be no misunderstanding as to the attitude of the United States, the Government of the United States announces to the allied powers that it holds it to be the duty of belligerent powers to distinguish between submarines of neutral and belligerent nationality, and that responsibility for any conflict that may arise between belligerent warships and neutral submarines on account of the neglect of a belligerent to so distinguish between these classes of submarines must rest entirely upon the negligent power.

On January 18, 1916, our Government addressed its confidential note to all entente belligerents on the issue of defensively armed merchant vessels. It is as follows:

It is a matter of deepest interest to my Government to bring to an end, if possible, the dangers of life which attend the use of sub

marines as at present employed in destroying enemy commerce on the high seas, since on any merchant vessel of belligerent nationality there may be citizens of the United States who have taken passage or members of the crew in the exercise of their recognized rights as neutrals. I assume your Government is equally solicitous to protect their nationals from the exceptional hazards which are presented by their passage on merchant vessels through these portions of the high seas in which undersea craft of the enemy are operating.

While I am fully alive to the appalling loss of life among noncombatants, regardless of their sex, which has resulted from the present method of destroying merchant vessels without removing the persons on board to places of safety, and while I view that practice as contrary to those humane principles which should control belligerents in the conduct of their naval operations, I do not feel that a belligerent should be deprived of the proper use of submarines in the invasion of commerce, since those instruments of war have proved their effectiveness in this particular branch of warfare on the high seas.

In order to bring submarine warfare within the general rules of international law and the principles of humanity without destroying their efficiency in the destruction of commerce, I believe that a formula may be found which, though it may require slight modification of the precedent generally followed by nations prior to the employment of the submarine, will appeal to the sense of justice and fairness cf all the belligerents in the present war.

Your Government will understand that in seeking the formula or rule of this nature I approach it of necessity from the point of view of a neutral, but I believe that it will be equally efficacious in preserving the lives of noncombatants on merchant vessels of belligerent nationalities.

My comments on this subject are predicted on the following propositions:

First. A noncombatant has a right to traverse the high seas in a merchant vessel entitled to fly a belligerent flag, to rely upon the observance of the rules of international law and principles of humanity, and if the vessel is approached by the naval vessel of another belligerent the merchant vessel of enemy nationality should not be attacked without being ordered to stop.

Second. An enemy merchant vessel, when ordered to do so by a belligerent submarine, should immediately stop.

Third. Such vessel should not be attacked after being ordered to stop unless it attempts to flee or to resist. In case it ceases to flee or to resist the attack should be discontinued.

Fourth. In the event that it is impossible to place a prize crew on board of an enemy merchant vessel or to convoy her into port the vessel may be sunk, provided the crew and passengers have been removed to a place of safety.

In complying with the foregoing principles, which, in my opinion, embody the principal rule, the strict observance of which will insure the life of a noncombatant on a merchant vessel which is intercepted by a submarine, I am not unmindful of the obstacles which would be met by undersea craft as commerce destroyers.

Prior to the year 1915 belligerent operations against enemy commerce on the high seas had been conducted with cruisers carrying

heavy armaments. In these conditions international law appeared to permit a merchant vessel to carry armament for defensive purposes without lessening its character as a private merchant vessel. This right seems to have been predicated on the superior defensive strength of ships of war, and the limitation of armament to have been dependent on the fact that it could not be used effectively in offensive against enemy naval vessels, while it could defend the merchantmen against the generally inferior armament of piratical ships and privateers.

The use of the submarine, however, has changed these relations. Comparison of the defensive strength of a cruiser and a submarine shows that the latter, relying for protection on its power to submerge, is almost defenseless in point of construction. Even a merchant ship carrying a small-caliber gun would be able to use it effectively against the submarine.

Moreover, pirates and sea rovers have been swept from the main trade channels of the sea and privateering has been abolished. Consequently the placing of guns on merchantmen at the present date of submarine warfare can be explained only on the ground of a purpose to render merchantmen superior in force to submarines and to prevent warning and visit and search by them. Any armament, therefore, on a merchant vessel would seem to have the character of an offensive armament.

If a submarine is required to stop and search a merchant vessel on the high seas, and in case it is found that she is of an enemy character and that conditions necessitate her destruction and the removal to a place of safety of persons on board, it would not seem just nor reasonable that the submarine should be compelled, while complying with these requirements, to expose itself to almost certain destruction by the guns on board the merchant vessel.

It would therefore appear to be a reasonable and reciprocally just arrangement if it could be agreed by the opposing belligerents that submarines should be caused to adhere strictly to the rules of international law in the matter of stopping and searching merchant vessels, determining their belligerent nationality, and removing the crews and passengers to places of safety before sinking the vessels as prizes of war, and that merchant vessels of belligerent nationality should be prohibited from carrying any armament whatsoever.

In proposing this formula as a basis of conditional declarations by the belligerent Government I do so in the full conviction that each Government will consider primarily the humane purpose of saving the lives of innocent people rather than the insistence upon doubtful legal rights which may be denied on account of new conditions.

I would be pleased to be informed whether your Government would be willing to make such a declaration conditioned upon your enemies making a similar declaration.

I should say that my Government is impressed with the reasonableness of the argument that a merchant vessel carrying an armament of any sort, in view of the character of the submarine warfare and the defensive weakness of undersea craft, should be held to be an auxiliary cruiser and so treated by a neutral as well as by a belligerent Government, and is seriously considering instructing its officials accordingly.

The contents of this note was made public on the 18th of Febru ary, 1916. Ten days before this note was made public, and just one year from the day of our "strict accountability" note, Germany announced her intention to attack armed merchantmen without warning:

BERLIN ATTITUDE TO U-BOAT WAR-TEXT OF GERMAN WARNING TO NEUTRALS AND EVIDENCE BACKING IT IS GIVEN OUT-ATTACKS ON SUBMARINES-GERMAN DETAILS OF CLASHES WITH ARMED MERCHANT SHIPS OF ALLIES-INSTRUCTIONS THEY FOUND-DOCUMENTS TAKEN FROM THE ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT "WOODFIELD " MADE PUBLIC IN WASHINGTON.

WASHINGTON, March 17.

Frank L. Polk, Acting Secretary of State, to-day made public the official text of the memorandum issued by the German Government on February 10, which announced to the neutral powers the purpose of Germany to treat all armed enemy merchantmen as belligerents liable to attack without warning after February 29.

At the same time the State Department made public for the first time the official copies of all the so-called "appendices" to the memorandum in the form of a dozen exhibits, embracing what are declared by the German Government to be secret instructions issued by the British Admiralty to British merchant ships armed for defense, advising them to use their guns against enemy submarines pursuing or approaching them. One appendix is a recital of instances in which merchant ships are alleged to have fired on German and Austrian submarines.

The alleged secret instructions covered by these exhibits are declared to have been found on the British steamer Woodfield, which was sunk by a submarine in the western Mediterranean on November 3 last and on the British steamer Linkmoor. These instructions differ materially from the British version of the Admiralty orders. to armed merchantmen, the full text of which was made public by the British Admiralty.

At the outbreak of the war the German Government, acting upon the suggestion of the United States, immediately expressed its readiness to ratify the declaration of London. At that time a German prize code had already been issued, which was entirely-and without modification-based upon rules of the declaration of London. Germany thereby proved her willingness to recognize full and existing rules of international law, which insure the freedom of the sea for the legitimate trade of neutral nations not only among themselves but also with belligerent countries.

GERMANY UTILIZES NEW WEAPON.

Great Britain, on the other hand, declined to ratify the declaration of London, and after the outbreak of the war began to restrict the legitimate trade of the neutrals in order to hit Germany. The contraband provisions were systematically extended on August 5 and 20, September 21, and October 29, 1914. On November 3, 1914, the order of the British Admiralty followed, declaring the whole North

Sea a war zone, in which commercial shipping would be exposed to most serious danger from mines and men-of-war. Protests from neutrals were of no avail, and from that time on the freedom of neutral commerce with Germany was practically destroyed.

Under these circumstances Germany was compelled to resort, in February, 1915, to reprisals in order to fight her opponent's measures, which were absolutely contrary to international law. She chose for this purpose a new weapon, the use of which had not yet been regulated by international law, and in doing so could and did not violate any existing rules, but only took into account the peculiarity of this new weapon-the submarine boat.

NEW DANGER TO NEUTRALS.

The use of the submarine naturally necessitated a restriction of the free movement of neutrals and constituted a danger for them which Germany intended to ward off by a special warning analogous to the warning England had given regarding the North Sea.

As both belligerents-Germany in her note of February 17 and Great Britain in those of February 18 and 20, 1915-claimed that their proceeding was only enacted in retaliation for the violation of international law by their opponents, the American Government approached both parties for the purpose of trying to reestablish international law as it had been in force before the war. Germany was asked to adapt the use of her new weapon to the rules which had been existing for the former naval weapons, and England not to interfere with the food supplies intended for the noncombatant German population and to admit their distribution under American supervision.

GERMANY OFFERS TO COMPLY.

Germany, on March 1, 1915, declared her willingness to comply with the proposal of the American_Government, while England, on the other hand, declined to do so. By the order in council of March 11, 1915, Great Britain abolished even what had remained of the freedom of neutral trade with Germany and her neutral neighbors. England's object was to starve Germany into submission by these illegal means.

Germany, after neutral citizens had lost their lives against the wish and intention, nevertheless, in the further course of the war, complied with the wishes of the American Government regarding the use of her submarines. The rights of neutrals regarding legal trading were, in fact, nowhere limited by Germany.

Then England made it impossible for submarines to conform with the old rules of international law by arming nearly all merchantmen and by ordering the use of guns on merchant vessels for attack. Photographic reproductions of those instructions have been transmitted to neutral Governments with the memorandum of the German Government of February 8, 1916. These orders are obviously in contradiction with the note delivered by the British ambassador in Washington to the American Government on August 25, 1914.

On account of the proposals made by the United States on January 23 (18), 1916, regarding disarmament, the Imperial Government