A \ B \ C \ D \ E \ F \ G \ H \ I \ J \ K \ L \ M \ N \ O \ P \ R \ S \ T \ U \ V \ W \Z

New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915 by Various

V >> Various >> New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915




Germany has further expressly announced the destruction of all enemy
merchant vessels found within the war zone, but not the destruction of
all merchant vessels, as the United States seems erroneously to have
understood. This restriction which Germany imposes upon itself is
prejudicial to the aim of our warfare, especially as in the application
of the conception of contraband practiced by Great Britain toward
Germany--which conception will now also be similarly interpreted by
Germany--the presumption will be that neutral ships have contraband
aboard. Germany naturally is unwilling to renounce its rights to
ascertain the presence of contraband in neutral vessels, and in certain
cases to draw conclusions therefrom.

Germany is ready, finally, to deliberate with the United States
concerning any measures which might secure the safety of legitimate
shipping of neutrals in the war zone. Germany cannot, however, forbear
to point out that all its efforts in this direction may be rendered very
difficult by two circumstances: First, the misuse of neutral flags by
British merchant vessels, which is indubitably known to the United
States; second, the contraband trade already mentioned, especially in
war materials, on neutral vessels.

Regarding the latter point, Germany would fain hope that the United
States, after further consideration, will come to a conclusion
corresponding to the spirit of real neutrality. Regarding the first
point, the secret order of the British Admiralty, recommending to
British merchant ships the use of neutral flags, has been communicated
by Germany to the United States and confirmed by communication with the
British Foreign Office, which designates this procedure as entirely
unobjectionable and in accordance with British law. British merchant
shipping immediately followed this advice, as doubtless is known to the
American Government from the incidents of the Lusitania and the Laertes.

Moreover, the British Government has supplied arms to British merchant
ships and instructed them forcibly to resist German submarines. In these
circumstances, it would be very difficult for submarines to recognize
neutral merchant ships, for search in most cases cannot be undertaken,
seeing that in the case of a disguised British ship from which an attack
may be expected the searching party and the submarine would be exposed
to destruction.

Great Britain, then, was in a position to make the German measures
illusory if the British merchant fleet persisted in the misuse of
neutral flags and neutral ships could not otherwise be recognized beyond
doubt. Germany, however, being in a state of necessity, wherein she was
placed by violation of law, must render effective her measures in all
circumstances, in order thereby to compel her adversary to adopt methods
of warfare corresponding with international law, and so to restore the
freedom of the seas, of which Germany at all times is the defender and
for which she today is fighting.

Germany therefore rejoices that the United States has made
representations to Great Britain concerning the illegal use of their
flag, and expresses the expectation that this procedure will force
Great Britain to respect the American flag in the future. In this
expectation, commanders of German submarines have been instructed, as
already mentioned in the note of Feb. 4, to refrain from violent action
against American merchant vessels, so far as these can be recognized.

In order to prevent in the surest manner the consequences of
confusion--though naturally not so far as mines are concerned--Germany
recommends that the United States make its ships which are conveying
peaceful cargoes through the British war zone discernible by means of
convoys.

Germany believes it may act on the supposition that only such ships
would be convoyed as carried goods not regarded as contraband according
to the British interpretation made in the case of Germany.

How this method of convoy can be carried out is a question concerning
which Germany is ready to open negotiations with the United States as
soon as possible. Germany would be particularly grateful, however, if
the United States would urgently recommend to its merchant vessels to
avoid the British naval war zone, in any case until the settlement of
the flag question. Germany is inclined to the confident hope that the
United States will be able to appreciate in its entire significance the
heavy battle which Germany is waging for existence, and that from the
foregoing explanations and promises it will acquire full understanding
of the motives and the aims of the measures announced by Germany.

Germany repeats that it has now resolved upon the projected measures
only under the strongest necessity of national self-defense, such
measures having been deferred out of consideration for neutrals.

If the United States, in view of the weight which it is justified in
throwing and able to throw into the scales of the fate of peoples,
should succeed at the last moment in removing the grounds which make
that procedure an obligatory duty for Germany, and if the American
Government, in particular, should find a way to make the Declaration of
London respected--on behalf, also, of those powers which are fighting on
Germany's side--and there by make possible for Germany legitimate
importation of the necessaries of life and industrial raw material, then
the German Government could not too highly appreciate such a service,
rendered in the interests of humane methods of warfare, and would gladly
draw conclusions from the new situation.


BRITAIN'S ANSWER.

_LONDON, Feb. 19.--The full text of Great Britain's note regarding the
flag, as handed to the American Ambassador, follows:_

The memorandum communicated on the 11th of February calls attention in
courteous and friendly terms to the action of the Captain of the British
steamer Lusitania in raising the flag of the United States of America
when approaching British waters, and says that the Government of the
United States feels certain anxiety in considering the possibility of
any general use of the flag of the United States by British vessels
traversing those waters, since the effect of such a policy might be to
bring about a menace to the lives and vessels of United States citizens.

It was understood that the German Government announced their intention
of sinking British merchant vessels at sight by torpedoes, without
giving any opportunity of making any provision for the saving of the
lives of non-combatant crews and passengers. It was in consequence of
this threat that the Lusitania raised the United States flag on her
inward voyage.

On her subsequent outward voyage a request was made by United States
passengers, who were embarking on board of her, that the United States
flag should be hoisted presumably to insure their safety. Meanwhile, the
memorandum from your Excellency had been received. His Majesty's
Government did not give any advice to the company as to how to meet this
request, and it understood that the Lusitania left Liverpool under the
British flag.

It seems unnecessary to say more as regards the Lusitania in particular.

In regard to the use of foreign flags by merchant vessels, the British
Merchant Shipping act makes it clear that the use of the British flag by
foreign merchant vessels is permitted in time of war for the purpose of
escaping capture. It is believed that in the case of some other nations
there is similar recognition of the same practice with regard to their
flag, and that none of them has forbidden it.

It would, therefore, be unreasonable to expect his Majesty's Government
to pass legislation forbidding the use of foreign flags by British
merchant vessels to avoid capture by the enemy, now that the German
Government have announced their intention to sink merchant vessels at
sight with their non-combatant crews, cargoes, and papers, a proceeding
hitherto regarded by the opinion of the world not as war, but piracy.

It is felt that the United States Government could not fairly ask the
British Government to order British merchant vessels to forgo a means,
always hitherto permitted, of escaping not only capture but the much
worse fate of sinking and destruction.

Great Britain always has, when a neutral, accorded to vessels of other
States at war the liberty to use the British flag as a means of
protection against capture, and instances are on record when United
States vessels availed themselves of this facility during the American
civil war. It would be contrary to fair expectation if now, when
conditions are reversed, the United States and neutral nations were to
grudge to British ships the liberty to take similar action.

The British Government have no intention of advising their merchant
shipping to use foreign flags as a general practice or to resort to them
otherwise than for escaping capture or destruction. The obligation upon
a belligerent warship to ascertain definitely for itself the nationality
and character of a merchant vessel before capturing it, and a fortiori
before sinking and destroying it, has been universally recognized.

If that obligation is fulfilled, the hoisting of a neutral flag on board
a British vessel cannot possibly endanger neutral shipping, and the
British Government holds that if loss to neutrals is caused by disregard
of this obligation it is upon the enemy vessel disregarding it and upon
the Government giving the orders that it should be disregarded that the
sole responsibility for injury to neutrals ought to rest.


ALLIES' DECLARATION OF REPRISALS.

_LONDON, March 1.--Following is the text of the statement read by
Premier Asquith in the House of Commons today and communicated at the
same time to the neutral powers in their capitals as an outline of the
Allies' policy of retaliation against Germany for her "war zone"
decree:_

Germany has declared the English Channel, the north and west coasts of
France, and the waters around the British Isles a war area, and has
officially given notice that all enemy ships found in that area will be
destroyed, and that neutral vessels may be exposed to danger.

This is, in effect, a claim to torpedo at sight, without regard to the
safety of the crew or passengers, any merchant vessel under any flag. As
it is not in the power of the German Admiralty to maintain any surface
craft in these waters, the attack can only be delivered by submarine
agency.

The law and customs of nations in regard to attacks on commerce have
always presumed that the first duty of the captor of a merchant vessel
is bringing it before a prize court, where it may be tried and where
regularities of the capture may be challenged, and where neutrals may
recover their cargo.

The sinking of prizes is, in itself, a questionable act, to be resorted
to only in extraordinary circumstances, and after provision has been
made for the safety of all crews and passengers.

The responsibility of discriminating between neutral and enemy vessels
and between neutral and enemy cargoes obviously rests with the attacking
ship, whose duty it is to verify the status and character of the vessel
and cargo, and to preserve all papers before sinking or capturing the
ship. So, also, the humane duty to provide for the safety of crews of
merchant vessels, whether neutral or enemy, is an obligation on every
belligerent.

It is upon this basis that all previous discussions of law for
regulating warfare have proceeded. The German submarine fulfills none of
these obligations. She enjoys no local command of the waters wherein she
operates. She does not take her captures within the jurisdiction of a
prize court. She carries no prize crew which can be put aboard prizes
which she seizes. She uses no effective means of discriminating between
neutral and enemy vessels. She does not receive on board for safety the
crew of the vessel she sinks. Her methods of warfare, therefore, are
entirely outside the scope of any international instruments regulating
operations against commerce in time of war.

The German declaration substitutes indiscriminate destruction for
regulated captures. Germany has adopted this method against the peaceful
trader and the non-combatant, with the avowed object of preventing
commodities of all kinds, including food for the civilian population,
from reaching or leaving the British Isles or Northern France.

Her opponents are, therefore, driven to frame retaliatory measures in
order in their turn to prevent commodities of any kind from reaching or
leaving Germany.

These measures will, however, be enforced by the British and French
Governments without risk to neutral ships or neutral or non-combatant
lives, and in strict observation of the dictates of humanity. The
British and French Governments will, therefore, hold themselves free to
detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy
destination, ownership, or origin.

It is not intended to confiscate such vessels or cargoes unless they
would otherwise be liable to confiscation. Vessels with cargoes which
sailed before this date will not be affected.


Britain's New and Original Blockade

American Protests Following the "War Zone" Decrees Defined

The first definite statement of the real character of the
measures adopted by Great Britain and her allies for
restricting the trade of Germany was obtained at Washington on
March 17, 1915, when Secretary Bryan made public the text of
all the recent notes exchanged between the United States
Government and Germany and the Allies regarding the freedom of
legitimate American commerce in the war zones. These notes,
six in all, show that Great Britain and France stand firm in
their announced intention to cut off all trade with Germany.
The communications revealed that the United States Government,
realizing the difficulties of maintaining an effective
blockade by a close guard of an enemy coast on account of the
newly developed activity of submarines, asked that "a radius
of activity" be defined. Great Britain and France replied with
the announcement that the operations of blockade would not be
conducted "outside of European waters, including the
Mediterranean."

The definition of a "radius of activity" for the allied fleet
in European waters, including the Mediterranean, is the first
intimation of the geographical limits of the reprisal order.
Its limits were not given more exactly, the Allies contend,
because Germany was equally indefinite in proclaiming all the
waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland a "war zone." The
measures adopted are those of a blockade against all trade to
and from Germany--not the historical kind of blockade
recognized in international law, but a new and original form.

The several notes between the United States and the
belligerent Governments follow. The stars in the German note
mean that as it came to the State Department in cipher certain
words were omitted, probably through telegraphic error. In the
official text of the note the State Department calls
attention to the stars by an asterisk and a footnote saying
"apparent omission." In the French note the same thing occurs,
and is indicated by the footnote "undecipherable group,"
meaning that the cipher symbols into which the French note was
put by our Embassy in Paris could not be translated back into
plain language by the State Department cipher experts. From
the context it is apparent that the omitted words in the
German note are "insist upon," or words to that effect.

AMERICAN NOTE TO THE BELLIGERENTS.

_The following identic note was sent by the Secretary of State to the
American Ambassadors at London and Berlin:_

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 1915.

You will please deliver to Sir Edward Grey the following identic note,
which we are sending England and Germany:

In view of the correspondence which has passed between this Government
and Great Britain and Germany, respectively, relative to the declaration
of a war zone by the German Admiralty, and the use of neutral flags by
the British merchant vessels, this Government ventures to express the
hope that the two belligerent Governments may, through reciprocal
concessions, find a basis for agreement which will relieve neutral ships
engaged in peaceful commerce from the great dangers which they will
incur in the high seas adjacent to the coasts of the belligerents.

The Government of the United States respectfully suggests that an
agreement in terms like the following might be entered into. This
suggestion is not to be regarded as in any sense a proposal made by this
Government, for it of course fully recognizes that it is not its
privilege to propose terms of agreement between Great Britain and
Germany, even though the matter be one in which it and the people of the
United States are directly and deeply interested. It is merely venturing
to take the liberty, which it hopes may be accorded a sincere friend
desirous of embarrassing neither nation involved, and of serving, if it
may, the common interests of humanity. The course outlined is offered in
the hope that it may draw forth the views and elicit the suggestions of
the British and German Governments on a matter of capital interest to
the whole world.

Germany and Great Britain to agree:

First--That neither will sow any floating mines, whether upon the high
seas or in territorial waters; that neither will plant on the high seas
anchored mines, except within cannon range of harbors for defensive
purposes only; and that all mines shall bear the stamp of the Government
planting them, and be so constructed as to become harmless if separated
from their moorings.

Second--That neither will use submarines to attack merchant vessels of
any nationality, except to enforce the right of visit and search.

Third---That each will require their respective merchant vessels not to
use neutral flags for the purpose of disguise or ruse de guerre.

Germany to agree: That all importations of food or foodstuffs from the
United States (and from such other neutral countries as may ask it) into
Germany shall be consigned to agencies to be designated by the United
States Government; that these American agencies shall have entire charge
and control without interference on the part of German Government of the
receipt and distribution of such importations, and shall distribute them
solely to retail dealers bearing licenses from the German Government
entitling them to receive and furnish such food and foodstuffs to
non-combatants only; that any violation of the terms of the retailers'
licenses shall work a forfeiture of their rights to receive such food
and foodstuffs for this purpose, and that such food and foodstuffs will
not be requisitioned by the German Government for any purpose
whatsoever, or be diverted to the use of the armed forces of Germany.

Great Britain to agree: That food and foodstuffs will not be placed
upon the absolute contraband list, and that shipments of such
commodities will not be interfered with or detained by British
authorities, if consigned to agencies designated by the United States
Government in Germany for the receipt and distribution of such cargoes
to licensed German retailers for distribution solely to the
non-combatant population.

In submitting this proposed basis of agreement this Government does not
wish to be understood as admitting or denying any belligerent or neutral
right established by the principles of international law, but would
consider the agreement, if acceptable to the interested powers, a modus
vivendi based upon expediency rather than legal right, and as not
binding upon the United States either in its present form or in a
modified form until accepted by this Government.

BRYAN.


II.

GERMANY'S REPLY.

_The German reply, handed to the American Ambassador at Berlin,
follows:_

BERLIN, March 1, 1915.

The undersigned has the honor to inform his Excellency, Mr. James W.
Gerard, Ambassador of the United States of America, in reply to the note
of the 22d inst., that the Imperial German Government have taken note
with great interest of the suggestion of the American Government that
certain principles for the conduct of maritime war on the part of
Germany and England be agreed upon for the protection of neutral
shipping. They see therein new evidence of the friendly feelings of the
American Government toward the German Government, which are fully
reciprocated by Germany.

It is in accordance with Germany's wishes also to have maritime war
conducted according to rules, which, without discriminatingly
restricting one or the other of the belligerent powers in the use of
their means of warfare, are equally considerate of the interests of
neutrals and the dictates of humanity. Consequently it was intimated in
the German note of the 16th inst. that observation of the Declaration
of London on the part of Germany's adversaries would create a new
situation from which the German Government would gladly draw the proper
conclusions.

Proceeding from this view, the German Government have carefully examined
the suggestion of the American Government and believe that they can
actually see in it a suitable basis for the practical solution of the
questions which have arisen.

With regard to the various points of the American note, they beg to make
the following remarks:

First--With regard to the sowing of mines, the German Government would
be willing to agree, as suggested, not to use floating mines and to have
anchored mines constructed as indicated. Moreover, they agree to put the
stamp of the Government on all mines to be planted. On the other hand,
it does not appear to them to be feasible for the belligerents wholly to
for ego the use of anchored mines for offensive purposes.

Second--The German Government would undertake not to use their
submarines to attack mercantile of any flag except when necessary to
enforce the right of visit and search. Should the enemy nationality of
the vessel or the presence of contraband be ascertained, submarines
would proceed in accordance with the general rules of international law.

Third--As provided in the American note, this restriction of the use of
the submarines is contingent on the fact that enemy mercantile abstain
from the use of the neutral flag and other neutral distinctive marks. It
would appear to be a matter of course that such mercantile vessels also
abstain from arming themselves and from all resistance by force, since
such procedure contrary to international law would render impossible any
action of the submarines in accordance with international law.

Fourth--The regulation of legitimate importations of food into Germany
suggested by the American Government appears to be in general
acceptable. Such regulation would, of course, be confined to
importations by sea, but that would, on the other hand, include
indirect importations by way of neutral ports. The German Government
would, therefore, be willing to make the declarations of the nature
provided in the American note so that the use of the imported food and
foodstuffs solely by the non-combatant population would be guaranteed.
The Imperial Government must, however, in addition (* * * * *)[1] having
the importation of other raw material used by the economic system of
non-combatants, including forage, permitted. To that end the enemy
Governments would have to permit the free entry into Germany of the raw
material mentioned in the free list of the Declaration of London, and to
treat materials included in the list of conditional contraband according
to the same principles as food and foodstuffs.

[Footnote 1: Apparent omission.]

The German Government venture to hope that the agreement for which the
American Government have paved the way may be reached after due
consideration of the remarks made above, and that in this way peaceable
neutral shipping and trade will not have to suffer any more than is
absolutely necessary from the unavoidable effects of maritime war. These
effects could be still further reduced if, as was pointed out in the
German note of the 16th inst., some way could be found to exclude the
shipping of munitions of war from neutral countries to belligerents on
ships of any nationality.

The German Government must, of course, reserve a definite statement of
their position until such time as they may receive further information
from the American Government enabling them to see what obligations the
British Government are, on their part, willing to assume.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion, &c.

VON JAGOW.

Dated, Foreign Office, Berlin, Feb. 28, 1915.

GERARD.


III.

GREAT BRITAIN'S REPLY.

_The reply of Great Britain to the American note of Feb. 20, handed to
the American Ambassador at London, was as follows:_

LONDON, March 15, 1915.

Following is the full text of a memorandum dated March 13, which Grey
handed me today:

Copyright (c) 2007. bestextbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Kate Langley Bosher - "Mary Cary"

Various - "Punch, or the London Charivari, Vol. 102, May 21, 1892"

Various - "The American Missionary, Vol. 44, No. 5, May 1890"

Leonard Huxley - "Thomas Henry Huxley"