Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

for protection. Both of these presumptions may be overcome by evidence the first by secondary or collateral evidence, since the fact to be established is negative in character; the second by primary and direct evidence, since the fact to be established is positive in character.

THE TRADITIONS OF AMERICA

55. Extract from an Address of President Wilson. April 17, 1916

(New York Times, April 18, 1916)

Tradition is a handsome thing in proportion as we live up to it. If we fall away from the tradition of the fathers, we have dishonored them. If we forget the tradition of the fathers, we have changed our character; we have lost an old impulse; we have become unconscious of the principles in which the life of the nation itself is rooted and grounded. . . . No other nation was ever born into the world with the purpose of serving the rest of the world just as much as it served itself.

The purpose of this nation was in one sense to afford an asylum to men of all classes and kinds who desired to be free and to take part in the administration of a self-governed Commonwealth. It was founded in order that men of every sort should have proof given that a Commonwealth of that sort was practicable, not only, but could win its standing of distinction and power among the nations of the world, and America will have forgotten her traditions whenever upon any occasion she fights merely for herself under such circumstances as will show that she has forgotten to fight for all mankind. And the only excuse that America can ever have for the assertion of her physical

force is that she asserts it in behalf of the interest of humanity.

What a splendid thing it is to have so singular a tradition a tradition of unselfishness! When America ceases to be unselfish, she will cease to be America. When she forgets the traditions of devotion to human rights in general, which gave spirit and impulse to her founders, she will have lost her title deeds to her own nationality.

GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE: SUSSEX

ULTIMATUM

56. Extract from a Communication of Secretary Lansing to Ambassador Gerard. April 18, 1916

(Department of State, Diplomatic Correspondence, European War Series, No. 3, p. 241)

[ocr errors]

A careful, detailed, and scrupulously impartial investigation 1 by naval and military officers of the United States has conclusively established the fact that the Susser was torpedoed without warning or summons to surrender and that the torpedo by which she was struck was of German manufacture. . . .

The Government of the United States, after having given. careful consideration to the note of the Imperial Government of the 10th of April, regrets to state that the impression made upon it by the statements, and proposals contained in that note is that the Imperial Government has failed to

1 The United States asked on March 27, 1916, for information from the German Government concerning the sinking of the Sussex. The German reply, dated April 10, 1916, is published in Department of State, Diplomatic Correspondence, European War Series, No. 3, p. 238. The Department of State, however, conducted an independent investigation and its evidence accompanied the note here published.

appreciate the gravity of the situation which has resulted, not alone from the attack on the Sussex but from the whole method and character of submarine warfare as disclosed by the unrestrained practice of the commanders of German undersea craft during the past twelvemonth and more in the indiscriminate destruction of merchant vessels of all sorts, nationalities, and destinations. If the sinking of the Sussez had been an isolated case the Government of the United States might find it possible to hope that the officer who was responsible for that act had willfully violated his orders or had been criminally negligent in taking none of the precautions they prescribed, and that the ends of justice might be satisfied by imposing upon him an adequate punishment, coupled with a formal disavowal of the act and payment of a suitable indemnity by the Imperial Government. But, though the attack upon the Sussex was manifestly indefensible and caused a loss of life so tragical as to make it stand forth as one of the most terrible examples of the inhumanity of submarine warfare as the commanders of German vessels are conducting it, it unhappily does not stand alone.

On the contrary, the Government of the United States is forced by recent events to conclude that it is only one instance, even though one of the most extreme and most distressing instances, of the deliberate method and spirit of indiscriminate destruction of merchant vessels of all sorts, nationalities, and destinations which have become more and more unmistakable as the activity of German undersea vessels of war has in recent months been quickened and extended.

The Imperial Government will recall that when, in February, 1915, it announced its intention of treating the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland as embraced within the seat of war and of destroying all merchant ships

owned by its enemies that might be found within that zone of danger, and warned all vessels, neutral as well as belligerent, to keep out of the waters thus proscribed or to enter them at their peril, the Government of the United States earnestly protested. It took the position that such a policy could not be pursued without constant gross and palpable violations of the accepted law of nations, particularly if submarine craft were to be employed as its instruments, inasmuch as the rules prescribed by that law, rules founded on the principles of humanity and established for the protection of the lives of noncombatants at sea, could not in the nature of the case be observed by such vessels. It based its protest on the ground that persons of neutral nationality and vessels of neutral ownership would be exposed to extreme and intolerable risks; and that no right to close any part of the high seas could lawfully be asserted by the Imperial Government in the circumstances then existing. The law of nations in these matters, upon which the Government of the United States based that protest, is not of recent origin or founded upon merely arbitrary principles set up by convention. It is based, on the contrary, upon manifest principles of humanity and has long been established with the approval and by the express assent of all civilized nations.

The Imperial Government, notwithstanding, persisted in carrying out the policy announced, expressing the hope that the dangers involved, at any rate to neutral vessels, would be reduced to a minimum by the instructions which it had issued to the commanders of its submarines, and assuring the Government of the United States that it would take every possible precaution both to respect the rights of neutrals and to safeguard the lives of noncombatants.

In pursuance of this policy of submarine warfare against the commerce of its adversaries, thus announced and thus

entered upon in despite of the solemn protest of the Government of the United States, the commanders of the Imperial Government's undersea vessels have carried on practices of such ruthless destruction which have made it more and more evident as the months have gone by that the Imperial Government has found it impracticable to put any such restraints upon them as it had hoped and promised to put. Again and again the Imperial Government has given its solemn assurances to the Government of the United States that at least passenger ships would not be thus dealt with, and yet it has repeatedly permitted its undersea commanders to disregard those assurances with entire impunity. As recently as February last it gave notice that it would regard all armed merchantmen owned by its enemies as part of the armed naval forces of its adversaries and deal with them as with men-of-war, thus, at least by implication, pledging itself to give warning to vessels which were not armed and to accord security of life to their passengers and crews; but even this limitation their submarine commanders have recklessly ignored.

Vessels of neutral ownership, even vessels of neutral ownership bound from neutral port to neutral port, have been destroyed along with vessels of belligerent ownership in constantly increasing numbers. Sometimes the merchantmen attacked have been warned and summoned to surrender before being fired on or torpedoed; sometimes their passengers and crews have been vouchsafed the poor security of being allowed to take to the ship's boats before the ship was sent to the bottom. But again and again no warning has been given, no escape even to the ship's boats allowed to those on board. Great liners like the Lusitania and Arabic and mere passenger boats like the Susser have been attacked without a moment's warning, often before they have even become aware that they were in the pres

« PředchozíPokračovat »