United States for the general acceptance of the Declaration of London, although accepted tentatively by Germany and Austria-Hungary, had not been adopted because the Allies under lead of Great Britain had named qualifying conditions. Consequently the government of the United States withdrew its suggestion of August 6, 1914, and fell back upon the already accepted rules of international law and the treaties then in existence, reserving the right to protest and demand reparation in each case of violation of its own rights.

ATTITUDE UPON BRITISH POLICY

Daily the American government was becoming more involved in the struggle, owing in large measure to the presence of American shipping in European waters and the disagreement among the belligerents as to the definition of contraband and the treatment of cargoes bound for neutral ports in Europe. The situation was of such a character as to increase in difficulty. The British Orders in Council of August, September and October steadily increased the control that Great Britain presumed to exercise over the commerce of neutrals.1 As Great Britain was in control of the sea the primary American grievance seemed against that government.

On December 26, 1914, the United States filed a lengthy protest against the seizure and destruction of cargoes bound for neutral ports. Great Britain was charged with

1 Department of State, Diplomatic Correspondence, European War Series, No. 1, pp. 11-18.

the rerefrain

violation of the rules in cases of both condonal and absolute contraband. It was pointed out that pace, not war, was the normal relation between nations, quest was definitely made that Great Britain from all unnecessary interference with the freedom of trade between nations which are sufferers, though not participants, in the present conflict." (Statement No. 25.) The tone of this note and the practice of the Department of State in filing notes of protest in each specific case made it clear that it was the purpose of the administration to consistently and completely present the American contention and to wait upon a more happy time to press the matters to a decision before courts of arbitration.

The President's point of view had been stated in October when he said before the American Bar Association, "The opinion of the world is the mistress of the world, and the processes of international law are the slow processes by which opinion works its will." (Statement No. 23.) Yet in the same address the President revealed that he was thinking of the possibilities, as yet largely hidden, in the struggle for power in Europe. For he spoke of the time of world change when men were going to find out 'just how, and in what particulars, and to what extent the real facts of human life and the real moral judgments of mankind prevail. . . ."

66

PLANS OF THE ADMINISTRATION

If, however, Woodrow Wilson was quickening to a realization of the months of diplomatic strife that were

before him, he gave no hint of it in his second annual message to Congress in December of 1914. (Statement No. 24.) "No one," said he, " who speaks counsel based on fact or drawn from a just and candid interpretation of realities can say that there is any reason to fear that from any quarter our independence or the integrity of our territory is threatened." He spoke at length of the need to develop better measures for trade with Latin America, and in general to put American shipping upon the sea while opportunities were offered by the engrossment of European nations in the war. The unprecedented destruction of men and goods in Europe made it necessary because the time was approaching when as never before Europe would need American aid. "We should be ready, more fit and ready than we have ever been," urged the President.

While thus urging the passage by the Senate of a specific shipping bill, endorsed in an earlier session by the administration, the President paused to ask favourable action by the Senate upon a matter of a very different nature. This was a bill granting to the people of the Philippines a larger measure of self-government. Within a few months of taking office the President had made known his general attitude in this matter, but in addressing the Congress at this time he placed the need upon quite other grounds, significant in view of his later utterances upon the European war. "How better," he asked, "in this time of anxious questioning and perplexed policy, could we show our confidence in the

principles of liberty, as the source as well as the expression of life, how better could we demonstrate our own self-possession and steadfastness in the courses of justice and disinterestedness than by thus going calmly forward to fulfil our promises to a dependent people, who will look more anxiously than ever to see whether we have indeed the liberality, the unselfishness, the courage, the faith we have boasted and professed?"

The quite obvious contrast between the attitude of the United States government toward Mexico, and that of Austria toward Servia had not been lost upon careful observers of Wilson's foreign policy. Here again it was patent that the President intended to make perfectly plain to an unbelieving world that there was even in time. of tragic uncertainty for a great portion of mankind such a possibility as an enduring belief in self-government.

DIFFICULTIES WITH GERMANY

But it was increasingly difficult not to be drawn into the European maelstrom. On January 7, 1915, Secretary Bryan in reply to a request of the German government that the government of the United States investigate charges of improper practices in Europe stated that the United States government could not as a neutral investigate or even comment.

The next development required more than a mere refusal to act. Repeatedly had the charge been made, and now with greater insistence as the winter advanced, that the attitude of the administration evidenced marked dis

crimination against Germany and Austria. This arose out of many things, but from nothing so much perhaps as the determination of the President to abide strictly by the rules of international law, and where disagreement or uncertainty existed as to any rules to maintain an American case based upon whatever precedent existed. This was emphasized by the refusal of the American government to countenance proposed changes in the rules or customs even where there was plausible justification for it in alterations in methods of maritime warfare. Whenever the German government decided to force this issue the opposition of the United States would be inevitable.

On January 20, 1915, Secretary Bryan in a letter to Senator Stone took up twenty charges of discrimination and presented the administration's answers. (Statement No. 27.) The spirit of the reply appeared in the concluding paragraph: "If any American citizens, partisans of Germany and Austria-Hungary, feel that this administration is acting in a way injurious to the cause of those countries, this feeling results from the fact that on the high seas the German and Austro-Hungarian naval power is thus far inferior to the British. It is the business of a belligerent operating on the high seas, not the duty of a neutral, to prevent contraband from reaching an enemy. Those in this country who sympathize with Germany and Austria-Hungary appear to assume that some obligation rests upon this Government in the performance of its neutral duty to prevent all trade in contraband, and thus to equalize the difference due to the relative naval