PRESIDENT WILSON'S ADDRESS TO THE SENATE
On January 22, President Wilson conveyed to the Senate the outcome of his note to belligerents of December 18, and presented his views on our foreign policy. While disclaiming a desire to "throw any obstacle in the way of any terms of peace the governments now at war might agree upon," the President insisted on the right and duty of the United States to play a part in laying the foundations of a lasting peace among nations. He expressed the opinion that such foundations could be established only by "peace without victory," that is, without the complete humiliation of either of the belligerent groups. Among the essential conditions of a lasting peace, he suggested the right of "every great people…to a direct outlet to the great highways of the sea"; the establishment of government based on the consent of the governed, as in the case of Poland; the freedom of the seas; and the limitation of land armaments. For the enforcement of peace, he suggested the world-wide application of a principle analogous to the Monroe Doctrine in the Western Hemisphere, backed up by a force contributed by all nations, "so much greater than the force of any nation now engaged, or any alliance hitherto formed or projected, that no nation, no probable combination of nations, could face or withstand it."
Foreign Comment on the Message
While the President's address was received with profound interest abroad, and aroused hearty support in liberal circles, foreign governments were inclined to express official approval only of those parts of the address which could be reconciled with their particular objects in the war. In a speech in Parliament on January 24, Mr. Ronar Law asserted that the President's aims and those of the Entente were identical, but could be attained only by a victory for the Entente. Russia, in a statement issued by the Foreign Office on January 26, expressed unqualified approval, mentioning in particular the restoration of Poland, free access to the seas, and limitation of armaments. On January 26, a resolution was adopted by the 89 united socialist members of the French Chamber of Deputies urging the government to affirm its accord with the principles expressed in the address. In reply to an interrogation in Parliament, on January 24, Count Tiszla, the Hungarian Premier, intimated that the Central Powers would in negotiations present terms acceptable to the enemy and calculated to secure lasting peace. Bulgaria found it possible to give the address unqualified approval. Germany's views were conveyed in her note of January 31.
NEW BRITISH WAR ZONK
On January 25, the British Foreign Office announced a danger area in the North Sea extending in a fan-like shape from a point 20 miles east of Flamborough Head, on the east coast of England, northeastward to the coast of Jutland and southeastward to the coast of Holland, and covering the entire North Sea coast of Germany.
In a second notice, issued February 13 and published February 17, this danger area was reduced to an area bounded approximately by a line from the Dutch coast north and then east to the Jutland coast, outside of Dutch and Danish territorial waters, and leaving an irregular lane about 30 miles wide, between 4" and 40 30' east longitude, by which Dutch commerce might pass between the British danger zone to the eastward and the German danger zone along the British coast.
GERMANY ANNOUNCES UNRESTRICTED SUBMARINE WARFARE
On January 31, Count von Bernstorff presented a note from his government, in which, alter discussing the President's message of January 22 and the peace terms submitted by belligerents, the German Government announced its intention of abandoning legal restrictions on naval warfare in designated sea areas. The note follows:
Washington, D. C, January 31, 1917.
Mr. Secretary of State:
Your Excellency was good enough to transmit to the Imperial Government a copy of the message which the President of the United States of America addressed to the Senate on the 22d inst. The Imperial Government has given it the earnest consideration which the President's statements deserve, inspired, as they are, by a deep sentiment of responsibility.
It is highly gratifying to the Imperial Government to ascertain that the main tendencies of this important statement correspond largely to the desires and principles professed by Germany. These principles especially include self-government and equality of rights for all nations. Germany would be sincerely glad if in recognition of this principle countries like Ireland and India, which do not enjoy the benefits of political independence, should now obtain their freedom.
The German people also repudiate all alliances which serve to force the countries into a competition for might and to involve them in a net of selfish intrigues. On the other hand, Germany will gladly co-operate in all efforts to prevent future wars.
The freedom of the seas, being a preliminary condition of the free existence of nations and the peaceful intercourse between them, as well as the open-door for the commerce of all nations, has always formed part of the leading principles of Germany's political program. All the more the Imperial Government regrets that the attitude of her enemies, who are so entirely opposed to peace, makes it impossible for the world at present to bring about the realization of these lofty ideals.
Germany and her allies were ready to enter now into a discussion of peace, and had set down as basis the guarantee of existence, honor, and free development of their peoples. Their aims, as has been expressly stated in the note of December 12, 1916, were not directed toward the destruction or annihilation of their enemies and were, according to their conviction, perfectly compatible with the rights of the other nations. As to Belgium, for which such warm and cordial sympathy is felt in the United States, the Chancellor had declared only a few weeks previously that its annexation had never formed part of Germany's intentions. The peace to be signed with Belgium was to provide for such conditions in that country, with which Germany desires to maintain friendly neighborly relations, that Belgium should not be used again by Germany's enemies for the purpose of instigating continuous hostile intrigues. Such precautionary measures are all the more necessary, as Germany's enemies have repeatedly stated, nut only in speeches delivered by their leading men, but also in the statutes of the Economical Conference in Paris, that it is their intention not to treat Germany as an equal, even after peace has been restored, but to continue their hostile attitude, and especially to wage a systematical economic war against her.
The attempt of the four allied powers to bring about peace has failed, owing to the lust of conquest of their enemies, who desired to dictate the conditions of peace. Under the pretense of following the principle of nationality, our enemies have disclosed their real aims in this way. viz.: To dismember and dishonor Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, and Bulgaria. To the wish of reconciliation they oppose the will of destruction. They desire a tight to the hitter end.
A new situation has thus been created which forces Germany to new decisions. Since two years and a half England is using her naval power for a criminal attempt to force Germany into submission by starvation. In brutal contempt of international law, the group of powers led by England does not only curtail the legitimate trade of their opponents, but they also, by ruthless pressure, compel neutral countries either to altogether forego every trade not agreeable to the Entente Powers or to limit it according to their arbitrary decrees.
The American Government knows the steps which have been taken to cause England and her allies to return to the rules of international law and to respect the freedom of the seas. The English Government, however, insists upon continuing its war of starvation, which does not at all affect the military power of its opponents, but compels women and children, the sick and the aged, to suffer for their country pains and privations which endanger the vitality of the nation. Thus British tyranny mercilessly increases the sufferings of the world, indifferent to the laws of humanity, indifferent to the protests of the neutrals whom they severely harm, indifferent even to the silent longing for peace among England's own allies. Each day of the terrible struggle causes new destruction, new sufferings. Each day shortening the war will, on both sides, preserve the lives of thousands of brave soldiers and be a benefit to mankind.
The Imperial Government could not justify before its own conscience, before the German people and before history the neglect of any means destined to bring about the end of the war. Like the President of the United States, the Imperial Government had hoped to reach this goal by negotiations. After the attempts to come to an understanding with the Entente Powers have been answered by the latter with the announcement of an intensified continuation of the war. the Imperial Government—in order to serve the welfare of mankind in a higher sense and not to wrong its own people—is now compelled to continue the fight for existence, again forced upon it, with the full employment of all the weapons which are at its disposal.
Sincerely trusting that the people and the government of the United States will understand the motives for this decision and its necessity, the Imperial Government hopes that the United States may view the new situation from the lofty heights of impartiality, and assist, on their part, to prevent further misery and unavoidable sacrifice of human life.
Enclosing two memoranda regarding the details of the contemplated military measures at sea, I remain, etc.,
J. Bernstorff
Appendices to German Note
A memorandum accompanying the German note outlined the "barred zones" established from the Dutch coast around the British Isles to Cape Finisterre, and in the Mediterranean including all waters lying eastward of the Franco-Spanish frontier. Within these zones it established a "safety lane" 20 miles broad leading to Greece, and a lane leading to Falmouth, England, through which an American passenger vessel might enter and leave Falmouth once a week, provided she carried no contraband. Two maps were appended showing the barred zones (see Naval War Notes).
A second memorandum, drawn up by Count von Bernstorff on instructions from Berlin prior to the President's address of January 22, was also submitted with the note. This memorandum was similar in substance to the note itself, basing the German action on the brutal aims and methods of the Entente, stating that "all ships met within the zone will be sunk," and that "the Imperial Government is confident that this measure will result in a speedy termination of the war."
(Note..—On February 3 Count von Bernstorff announced that, as a concession Germany would permit the passage of any American vessels, without contraband, through the Falmouth lane. As a concession to Holland, Germany also moved the eastern boundary of the danger zone to 40 east latitude; and as a concession to Switzerland, she moved the Mediterranean zone eastward of the French port of Cette.)
Hospital Ships No Longer Immune
Berlin, January 31.
The Admiralty to-day made the following announcement:
"The German Government has convincing evidence in hand that hostile hospital ships frequently are misused for the transportation of ammunition and troops. The government has communicated these proofs to the British and French Governments by diplomatic means. At the same time it declared that hospital ships passing on the military route of the hostile army engaged in France and Belgium, within the lines Flamborough Head-Terschelling on the one hand and Land's End-Ushaut on the other, shall be no more treated as such. Hostile powers are free to use hospital ships for the transportation of wounded and sick army members on ways outside this district. The barring of other sea routes is reserved in case of further misuse of hospital ships in violation of international law."—N. Y. Times, 1/2.
BREAK WITH GERMANY
Diplomatic Relations Severed. President’s Address to Congress
On February 3, President Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress on our relations with Germany. In this address he reviewed the submarine controversy by reading extracts from the following documents: (1) The protest made by the United States on April 18, 1916, after the sinking of the Sussex, declaring that "unless the Imperial Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight carrying vessels, the government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether"; (2) Germany's reply stating that orders had been issued that merchant vessels "shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance"; (3) the acceptance by the United States of this assurance, with the understanding that its fulfillment should be in no way contingent upon the results of negotiations between the United States and other belligerents; (4) the German declaration of unrestricted sea warfare in her note of January 31. The remainder of the President's address follows:
"I think that you will agree with me that, in view of this declaration, which suddenly and without prior intimation of any kind deliberately withdraws the solemn assurance given in the Imperial Governments' note of the 4th of May, 1916, this government has no alternative consistent with the dignity and honor of the United States but to take the course which, in its note of the 18th of April, 1916, it announced that it would take in the event that the German Government did not declare and effect an abandonment of the methods of submarine warfare which it was then employing and to which it now purposes again to resort.
"I have therefore directed the Secretary of State to announce to his Excellency, the German Ambassador, that all diplomatic relations between the United States and the German Empire are severed and that the American Ambassador at Berlin will immediately be withdrawn; and, in accordance with this decision, to hand to his Excellency his passports.
"Notwithstanding this unexpected action of the German Government, this sudden and deplorable renunciation of its assurances, given this government at one of the most critical moments of tension in the relations of the two governments, I refuse to believe that it is the intention of the German authorities to do in fact what they have warned us they will feel at liberty to do. I cannot bring myself to believe that they will indeed pay no regard to the ancient friendship between their people and our own or to the solemn obligations which have been exchanged between them, and destroy American ships and take the lives of American citizens in the willful prosecution of the ruthless naval program they have announced their intention to adopt. Only actual overt acts on their part can make me believe it even now.
"If this inveterate confidence on my part in the sobriety and prudent foresight of their purpose should unhappily prove unfounded; if American ships and American lives should in fact be sacrificed by their naval commanders in heedless contravention of the just and reasonable understandings of international law and the obvious dictates of humanity, I shall take the liberty of coming again before the Congress to ask that authority be given me to use any means that may be necessary for the protection of our seamen and our people in the prosecution of their peaceful and legitimate errands on the high seas. I can do nothing less. I take it for granted that all neutral governments will take the same course.
"We do not desire any hostile conflict with the Imperial German Government. We are the sincere friends of the German people, and earnestly desire to remain at peace with the government which speaks for them. We shall not believe that they are hostile to us unless and until we are obliged to believe it; and we purpose nothing more than the reasonable defence of the undoubted rights of our people. We wish to serve no selfish ends. We seek merely to stand true alike in thought and in action to the immemorial principles of our people which I have sought to express in my address to the Senate only two weeks ago—seek merely to vindicate our right to liberty and justice and an unmolested life. These are the bases of peace, not war. God grant that we may not be challenged to defend them by acts of willful injustice on the part of the government of Germany!"
Notice to Neutrals
Washington, February 4.
The State Department has sent to American diplomatic representatives in neutral countries the following instructions to announce the break with Germany and suggest that they take similar action:
"You will immediately notify the government to which you are accredited that the United States, because of the German Government's recent announcement of its intention to renew unrestricted submarine warfare, has no choice but to follow the course laid down in its note of April 18, 1916 (the Sussex note).
"It has, therefore, recalled the American Ambassador to Berlin and has delivered passports to the German Ambassador to the United States.
"Say also that the President is reluctant to believe Germany actually will carry out her threat against neutral commerce, but if it be done the President will ask Congress to authorize use of the national power to protect American citizens engaged in their peaceful and lawful errands on the seas.
"The course taken is. in the President's view, entirely in conformity with the principles he enunciated in his address to the Senate January 22.
"He believes it will make for the peace of the world if other neutral powers can find it possible to take similar action.
"Report fully and immediately on the reception of this announcement and upon the suggestion as to similar action."—N. Y. Times, 5/2.
Other Neutral Protests
Other neutral nations, without taking the drastic step of diplomatic rupture, made energetic protests against the illegality of German naval methods. The tone of these protests varied, as affected by proximity to Germany, previous negotiations, and divergent political interests.
Press dispatches of February 3 reported an active exchange of communications among the A B C Powers. The protest of Brazil, made public February 10, and typical of the attitude taken by South American states, concludes as follows:
"In such circumstances and while observing always and invariably the same principles, the Brazilian Government, after having examined the tenor of the German note, declares that it cannot accept as effective the blockade which has just been suddenly decreed by the Imperial Government. Because of the means employed to realize this blockade, the extent of the interdicted zones, the absence of all restrictions, including the failure of warning for even neutral menaced ships, and the announced intention of using every military means of destruction of no matter what character, such a blockade would neither be regular nor effective and would be contrary to the principles of law and the conventional rules established for military operations of this nature.
"For these reasons the Brazilian Government, in spite of its sincere and keen desire to avoid any disagreement with the nations at war, with whom it is on friendly terms, believes it to be its duty to protest against this blockade and consequently to leave entirely with the Imperial German Government the responsibility for all acts which will involve Brazilian citizens, merchandise or ships and which are proven to have been committed in disregard of the recognized principles of international law and of the conventions signed by Brazil and Germany."—N. Y. Times, 10/2.
Holland, in a vigorous protest dated February 7, emphasized the illegitimacy of a blockade over such vast areas, the interference with navigation between neutral countries, and the unwarranted destruction of neutral property and lives.
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, acting in concert, presented a protest the substance of which was given in dispatches of February 14. The note held Germany and Austria-Hungary responsible for loss of human lives or material injury to neutrals.
China, acting with the approval of Japan and with the evident object of strengthening her international position, openly threatened to sever diplomatic relations if the measures planned by Germany should be carried out. The text of the Chinese protest was made public February 11.
The Armed Merchantmen Issue: "Yarrowdale" Prisoners
On December 31 the captured British steamer Yarrowdale was taken into Swinemunde by a prize crew of 16 men, with 469 sailors taken from one Norwegian and seven British ships destroyed by a German raider in the South Atlantic. Among these sailors were 102 neutrals, of whom 72 were Americans. Germany at once released several of the latter because they had served on unarmed ships, but held the remaining 04 as prisoners of war, on the ground that the mounting of guns, either for defence or offence, deprived a vessel of her status as a private merchant craft, and converted her crew into belligerents.
Secretary Lansing demanded the release of these prisoners on February 3 and again on February 13, contending that the Berlin Government had no right to hold Americans unless they had committed a hostile act, and that service on an armed merchantman was not such an act. Reports from Berlin on February 6 and later indicated that Germany had decided to release the prisoners, but was holding them pending information as to the treatment of German ships and crews in American ports.
Arming American Merchantmen
Following the break with Germany, passenger steamers of the American line and other American merchantmen were held in port pending a government decision on the question of armament against submarines. The government took the position, as announced on February 8, that American vessels had full legal right "to take any measures to resist unlawful attack," and that the government would be justified in furnishing armament. On February 18 it was stated that the Cabinet was still deferring action in till- matter, but expected to take decisive measures in the following week.
Berlin press dispatches of February 16 contained the warning that the arming of American merchantmen "would make it impossible to save passengers and crew, if otherwise circumstances permitted."
German Ships in American Ports
On February 3 orders were issued by the Navy Department for the removal of the crews from all German war vessels interned in American ports. The liner Kronprinccssin Cccilic, against whose owners suits are pending in the federal courts, was taken over by a United States marshal. On inspection, the machinery of German merchant vessels in American ports was found seriously damaged; of 17 vessels in the Philippines, all were so mutilated as to require at least six months for repairs. According to court testimony of the engineer of the Cecilie, published February 18, this injury was committed January 31 upon orders issued from the German Embassy in Washington.
As announced on February 6, the policy of the United States was to make no use of these ships even in the event of war.
No Further Negotiations
On February 11, the Minister of Switzerland, acting in behalf of Germany, presented to Secretary Lansing the following memorandum:
"The Swiss Government has been requested by the German Government to say that the latter is now, as before, willing to negotiate, formally or informally, with the United States, provided that the commercial blockade against England will not be broken thereby.
(Signed) P. Ritter.
?
To this Secretary Lansing on February 12 dispatched the following reply:
My Dear Mr. Minister:
"I am requested by the President to say to you, in acknowledging the memorandum which you were kind enough to send me on the nth inst., that the government of the United States would gladly discuss with the German Government any questions it might propose for discussion were it to withdraw its proclamation of the 31st of January, in which, suddenly and without previous intimation of any kind, it canceled the assurances which it had given this government on the 4th of May last, but that it does not feel that it can enter into any discussion with the German Government concerning the policy of submarine warfare against neutrals which it is now pursuing unless and until the German Government renews its assurances of the 4th of May and acts upon the assurance. I am, my dear Mr. Minister, etc.,
"Robert Lansing.
"His Excellency, Dr. Paul Ritter, Minister of Switzerland."
Detention of Ambassador Gerard
Ambassador Gerard left Berlin February 14, proceeding via Switzerland to Barcelona. Press reports of the preceding week indicated that his mail and telegraph privileges had been cut off, and that he had been subjected to veiled threats by German authorities in an effort to secure a protocol reaffirming, with additions and omissions, the Prusso-American Treaties of 1799 and 1828. The amended version of the treaties has since been submitted through the Swiss Government for the approval of the United States.
Results of U-Boat Campaign
On February 18 Lloyd's announced that the destruction of merchant vessels by German submarines since February 1 amounted to 233.946 tons. Of 118 ships sunk, 75 were British, 7 belonged to other belligerents, and 36 were of neutral register. Of the two American ships destroyed, one was the Housatonic, with a cargo of wheat for the British Government, sunk on February 3 off the Scilly Islands. The crew were warned off and towed for some distance towards land. The other American vessel was the schooner Lydia M. Law (1300 tons), sunk by an Austrian submarine off Sardinia on February 12. The vessel's papers were examined and her crew warned off. The Law was bound from Maine to Scilly with a cargo of wood laths for fruit packing-cases.
British losses to date include the passenger steamer Port Adelaide (8181 tons), sunk February 5; the Anchor liner California (8662 tons), sunk without warning February 7 with a loss of 41 lives; and the White Star liner Afric (12,000 tons), reported lost on February 13, with 17 of the crew missing.
JAPAN
Parliament Dissolved
On January 25, confronted by the certainty of an adverse vote in the lower House, Premier Terauchi took the extreme step of dissolving Parliament by Imperial rescript. The present Cabinet will hold office pending the election of a new House of Representatives in April or May.
Opposition to Premier Terauchi, on the ground that the spirit of the Constitution is violated by the appointment of a Premier without a Parliamentary majority, came to a crisis during the preceding week, and was heightened by an attempt to assassinate Yukio Ozaki, leader of the Constitutional party. The Japanese Constitution does not require a responsible ministry, but the Constitutionalists are working to establish the principle by precedent.
Japanese Foreign Policy
A notable speech by Viscount Motono, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered in the Imperial Diet on January 23, was printed in the London Times of January 26. Among other points, Viscount Motono called attention to the fact that in the Entente peace terms no allusion was made to the fate of German colonies, and he added that "we took steps to safeguard our right when we addressed our adhesion to the draft, and I am happy to say that a satisfactory understanding exists among all the Allies on this point."
After referring to the Russo-Japanese Entente, the Minister spoke in hopeful terms of Japanese relations with the United States, citing the proposal for common financial action in China made by American capitalists as an instance of economic rapprochement.
On the subject of China, the Minister concluded as follows:
"Nobody disputes that Japan occupies a special position in China. But we must not ignore the fact that other powers have vast interests in China, and, in safeguarding our own interests, we must respect carefully those of others, and we must try first of all to move in accord with other powers with whom we have special agreements and try to reconcile our interests with those of other nations. We are firmly convinced that such is the best policy. In all that concerns the common interest of all nations Japan has no intention of following an egotistic policy in China. She desires most sincerely to work in agreement with the interested powers. The Imperial Government firmly believe that with a little good will a complete understanding can be reached for the welfare of China as well as of all the powers.—London Times, 27/1.
Anti-Japanese Legislation Dropped
As a result of pressure from Washington, Anti-Alien Land Bills introduced in the Idaho and Oregon legislatures were dropped on February 2.
CUBAN REVOLT
In view of the insurrection in Cuba, arising over the election in Santa Clara province held on February 14, Secretary Lansing on February 14 notified the Cuban Government, through the American Minister, that the United States would not give support or favor to any government established by revolt, and if necessary would intervene to protect the constitutional government.
The by-election in Santa Clara was to settle the disputed regular election of last November, in which President Menocnl (Conservative) and Dr. Alfred Zayas (Liberal) were the rival candidates.