enemy without injuring the lives of neutrals, as well as their property, humanity, as well as justice and a due regard for the dignity of neutral powers, should dictate that the practice be discontinued."

The Government of the United States professed itself not unmindful of the fact that when the existing international rules were formulated, the nations did not have in view the use of submarines, and announced that it was "ready to make reasonable allowances for these novel and unexpected aspects of war at sea; but it can not consent to abate any essential or fundamental right of its people because of a mere alteration of circumstances. The rights of neutrals in time of war are based upon principle, not upon expediency, and the principles are immutable. It is the duty and obligation of belligerents to find a way to adapt the new circumstances to them."

Secretary of State Lansing then apparently took the position that submarines could be used against commerce with a regard for the principles of international law and humanity and thus abandoned the belief, expressed in the first

Lusitania note that no submarine activities against commerce should be resorted to. In a paragraph of doubtful accuracy he said:

"The events of the past two months have clearly indicated that it is possible and practicable to conduct such submarine operations as have characterized the activity of the Imperial German Navy within the so-called war zone in substantial accord with the accepted practices of regulated warfare. The whole world has looked with interest and increasing satisfaction at the demonstration of that possibility by German naval commanders. It is manifestly possible, therefore, to lift the whole practice of submarine attack above the criticism which it has aroused and remove the chief causes of offense.

99 10

10 Here he probably had reference to the attacks on the Armenian and Anglo-Californian both of which attempted to escape. But it would seem that the inapplicability of the submarine to warfare on commerce had been demonstrated by the "unfortunate accidents' of the Gulflight and Nebraskan, admitted by Germany, "accidents' which could not have happened in cruiser warfare according to the recognized principles of international law. The facts of the Orduna incident which appear to negative Secretary Lansing's position even more definitely did not become known until after the despatch of his note. In the second American Lusitania note, a paragraph with reference to the Falaba correctly said that an effort to escape did not alter the obligation to safeguard the lives of those on board the merchantman. The force used could only be suffi cient to check the flight or overcome the resistance. See above, p. 51 and below, p. 159.

Finally, the German Government was again called upon to disavow "the wanton act of its naval commander in sinking the Lusitania," and to offer "reparation for the American lives lost so far as reparation can be made for a needless destruction of human life by an illegal act." The suggestion regarding vessels under the American flag which would have free passage in the war zones was rejected since "the very agreement would, by implication, subject other vessels to illegal attack and would be a curtailment and therefore an abandonment of the principles for which this Government contends and which in times of calmer counsels every nation would concede as of course." And this solemn warning was conveyed:

"The very value which this Government sets upon the long and unbroken friendship between the people and Government of the United States and the people and Government of the German nation impels it to press very solemnly upon the Imperial German Government the necessity for a scrupulous observance of neutral rights in this critical matter. Friendship itself prompts it to say to the Imperial Government that repetition by the commanders of German naval vessels of acts in contravention of those rights

must be regarded by the Government of the United States, when they affect American citizens, as deliberately unfriendly."

This, as I have said, was the final formal word of the United States on the Lusitania; further negotiations, to be referred to later, were conducted by means of "conversations" between the German Ambassador and the Secretary of State. But in the meantime a repetition, on a smaller scale, of the Lusitania tragedy brought the crisis to a head and wrung concessions and pledges, although limited, from the Imperial German Government.11

“The British Admiralty announced on May 18th that the submarine campaign had sunk 460,628 tons of British merchant and fishing vessels. This had caused the death of about 1556 persons. "On the other hand, no enemy or neutral subject had lost his life in consequence of the destruction by the English of enemy merchant vessels. Moreover, British warships had saved from drowning more than 1200 members of the crews of German warships destroyed, whereas no members of British crews had been saved by the Germans.", Quoted by Garner, "International Law in the European War,'' American Journal of International Law, Vol. IX, p. 607.

CHAPTER V

THE GERMAN PLEDGES

In defense of her action in sinking the Lusitania Germany had alleged, among the various reasons to which from time to time she resorted, that the vessel was carrying contraband, and that, in order to prevent innocent women and children from being widowed and orphaned, she was justified in taking any measures to stop such a cargo before it reached her enemy. The Arabic, however, permitted no such "defense," for this White Star Liner was bound for New York and hence carrying no contraband, was unarmed, and was torpedoed without warning (August 19th), twenty-five of the crew and nineteen passengers being reported missing, among them two Americans. Here, certainly, it seemed, was the "deliberately unfriendly" act referred to in the last American note.

That Germany and her Ambassador in this