T

HE historic message of President
Wilson, delivered before Congress

on April 2, 1917, has been officially published by the Government, with annotations giving the leading facts on which the rupture with Germany was developed, citing the issues in international law, and contrasting the spirit of Prussianism and Americanism. This publication is to be distributed to the schools throughout the country.

In a foreword it announced that the editorial annotations are the work of Professor William Stearns Davis of the History Department of the University of Minnesota, assisted by Professor C. D. Allin and Dr. William Anderson. The official sponsor for the publication adds:

The message is the best possible preparation for all loyal Americans who are studying the causes and justification for the present war, and who are trying to discover the proper mental attitude they themselves should take toward the personal part which they may be called to play in the struggle. * * Mr. Wilson contrasts the American and Prussian political philosophy and methods of doing things in a way that would become even more convincing if he had been allowed time to enter into specific details. Solemn official promises made only to be broken, conspiracies to burn and blow up American industries, to hamper our manufactures and cripple our Government by strikes and riots, spies in every centre of political and industrial activity, plans made on American soil and financed by German funds to dynamite canals, bridges, and munition factories in Canada, invitations to Mexico in times of peace to join with Germany in dismembering our Union, have led people and President alike to see submarine warfare as but a more flagrant expression of a German State policy running amuck in absolute disregard of every sense of national and international morals and decency and callous to the claims of common humanity.

CURRENT HISTORY MAGAZINE, May, 1917, published the official text of the President's war message. Professor Davis's annotations are here reproduced, with brief references to the sentences commented upon. Thus the annotations are here woven into a consecutive thesis, elucidating and amplifying the war message. In explaining the President's opening reference to his choices of policy, which he could not adopt constitutionally without Congressional advice, the editors remark:

There had been only two other periods in the history of the country equally serious1776 and 1861. Nobody can pretend that there have been any other crises in American history (barring the Revolution and the civil war) when so much that cltizens of this country count dear has been at stake. The War of 1812, the Mexican and Spanish wars seem as child's play beside the present exigency. Now, as this message makes clear, the very liberties of the world and the possibilities of peaceful democracies are at stake. If Germany should win this war, and thus become supreme on land and sea, the very existence of free democracies would be imperiled.

President Wilson had the sworn duty to lay the facts before Congress and recommend to it the needful action. The Constitution of the United States prescribes his duties in such emergencies.

It is worthy of note that the Constitution lays this duty and power of declaring war directly upon Congress, and that it can not be evaded by Congressmen by any referendum to the voters, for which not the slightest constitutional provision is made.

Congress performed this duty by voting on the war question as requested. The vote of the Senate was 82 to 6 for war; of the House 373 to 50. Such comparative unanimity upon so momentous a question is almost unparalleled in the history of free nations.

Beginning of Ruthless Policy

The President's reference to the adoption of unrestricted submarine warfare by the German Government is commented upon as follows:

The German Chancellor in announcing this repudiation of all his solemn pledges in the Imperial Parliament, [Reichstag,] on Jan. 31, frankly admitted that this policy involved "ruthlessness" toward neutrals. "When

the most ruthless methods are considered the best calculated to lead us to victory and to a swift victory * * * they must be employed. *** The moment has now arrived. Last August [when he was, as he himself here admits, allowing the American people to believe that in response to its protest he had laid aside such ruthless methods] the time was not yet ripe, but today the moment has come when we can undertake this enterprise."

And the promise of the German Government, withdrawn on Feb. 1, is referred to in these terms:

The broken Sussex pledge. On May 4, 1916, the German Government, in reply to the protest and warning of the United States following the sinking of the Sussex, gave this promise: That "merchant vessels both within and without the area declared a naval war zone shall not be sunk without warning, and without saving human lives, unless the ship attempt to escape or offer resistance."

Germany added, indeed, that if Great Britain continued her blockade policy, she would have to consider a new situation."

On May 8, 1916, the United States replied that it could not admit that the pledge of Germany was "in the slightest degree contingent upon the conduct of any other Government," (i. e.. on any question of the English blockade.) To this Germany made no reply at all, and under general diplomatic usage, when one nation makes a statement to another, the latest statement of the case stands as final unless there is a protest made.

The promise made by Germany thus became a binding pledge, and as such was torn up with other scraps of paper by the German "unlimited submarine warfare " note of Jan. 31, 1917.

Regarding the President's references to the cruel an unmanly business " of sinking merchant ships, and the "certain degree of restraint" observed at that time, the editors cite these facts:

As to the proper usages in dealing with merchant vessels in war, here are the rules laid down some time ago for the American Navy, (a fighting navy, surely,) and these rules hardly differed in other navies, including the Russian and Japanese:

United States Naval War Code, on treatment of merchant vessels stopped or captured by American men-of-war, (1900 ed., P. 48:) "The personnel of a merchant vessel captured as a prize are entitled to their personal effects.

"All passengers not in the service of the enemy, and all women and children on board such vessels, should be released and landed at a convenient port at the first opportunity. All persons in the naval service of the United States who pillage or maltreat in any manner any person found on board a mer

chant vessel captured as a prize shall be severely punished."

Inter"If a

United States Naval War College, national Law Topics," 1905, Page 6: seized neutral vessel cannot for any reason be brought into court for adjudication it should be dismissed."

United States Naval War Code, on safety required for persons on a captured vessel, (United States Naval War College, "International Law Topics," 1913, Page 165:) "The destruction of a vessel which has surrendered without first removing its officers and crew would be an act contrary to the sense of right which prevails even between enemies in time of war.

And also Lawrence, (standard authority on international law,) "International Law," Page 406: "It is better for a naval officer to release a ship as to which he is doubtful than to risk personal punishment and international complications by destroying innocent neutral property."

Sinking of Hospital Ships

The President's reference to the sinking of hospital and relief ships was elaborated as follows:

Mr. Wilson was undoubtedly thinking of the cases of the British hospital ships Asturias, sunk March 20, and the Gloucester Castle. These vessels had been sunk although protected by the most solemn possible of international compacts. The Germans seem to have acknowledged the sinking of the Asturias and to have regarded their feat with great complacency. Somewhat earlier in the war the great liner Britannic had been sunk while in service as a hospital ship, and the evidence seems to be it was torpedoed by a U-boat, although the proof here is not conclusive. Since this message was written the Germans have continued their policy of murdering more wounded soldiers and their nurses by sinking more hospital ships.

The Belgian relief ships referred to were probably the Camilla, Trevier, and the Feistein, but most particularly the large Norwegian steamer Storstad, sunk with 10,000 tons of grain for the starving Belgians. Besides these sinkings, two other relief shipsthe Tunisie and the Haelen-were attacked unsuccessfully.

And to his words, "I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any Government that had hitherto subscribed to humane practices of civilized nations," this note was added:

No nation assuredly has made prouder claims than Germany to a superior kultur," or made louder assertions of its desire to vindicate "the freedom of the seas."

His sentence referring to the "wanton and wholesale destruction of the lives of

noncombatants, men, women, and children, engaged in pursuits which have always, even in the darkest periods of modern history, been deemed innocent and legitimate," is elucidated in these words:

Mr. Wilson could have gone further back than "modern history." Even in the most troubled period of the Middle Ages there was consistent effort to spare the lives of nonbelligerents. Thus in the eleventh century not merely did the Church enjoin the "truce of God" which ordered all warfare to cease on four days of the week, but it especially pronounced its curse upon those who outraged or injured not merely clergymen and monks, but all classes of women. We also have ordinances from this "dark period of history. forbidding the interference with shepherds and their flocks, the damaging of olive trees, or the carrying off or destruction of farming implements. All this at a period when feudal barons are alleged to have been waging their wars with unusual ferocity. Contrast also with the German usages this American instance:

"

On May 12, 1898, Admiral Sampson with the American fleet appeared before Santiago, and conducted a reconnoissance in force to see if Cervera's squadron was in the port, but he did not 'subject the city to a regular bombardment" because that "would have required due notice " for the removal of the women, children, and the sick. He did this notwithstanding the fact that a sudden attack, well driven home, would probably have given him the city. In the attack on the forts alone, which he actually made, his ship Captains were carefully charged to avoid hitting the Spanish Military Hospital. (See H. Doc. No. 12, Fifty-fifth Congress, Third Session, Page 368.)

No one certainly has ever accused the American Navy of 'hitting soft" or of being unwilling to wage the most strenuous kind of honorable warfare.

American Vessels Destroyed

President Wilson's brief reference to the sinking of American ships calls for this definite list:

. American vessels sunk by submarines following German decree of ruthless submarine policy, Jan. 31, 1917.

Following eight or more American vessels which had been sunk or attacked earlier, in most cases in contravention to international law, these ships also had been sunk following the repudiation of her pledges by Germany: Feb. 3, 1917, Housatonic.

Feb. 13, 1917, Lyman M. Law.

March 16, 1917, Vigilancia.

March 17, 1917, City of Memphis."

March 17, 1917, Illinois.

March 21, 1917, Healdton, (claimed to have been sunk off Dutch coast, and far from the so-called " I prohibited zone.")

April 1, 1917, Aztec.

March 2, 1917, Algonquin.

Furthermore, no American should forget the sinking of the William P. Frye on Jan. 28, 1915, by a German raider. This act under normal circumstances would be a casus belli. The raider, the Prinz Eitel Friedrich, then impudently took refuge in an American port. And the American lives lost in such sinkings are summarized as follows:

American lives lost on the ocean during the war. (See Cong. Rec., 65th Cong., 1st sess., p. 1,006.)

American lives have been lost during the sinking of at least twenty vessels, whereof four were American, one Dutch, and one Norwegian. In one or two cases the vessel tried to escape and made resistance, and the loss of life was possibly excusable for the Germans. In the bulk of the cases the destruction was without fair warning and without reasonable effort to give the passengers and crew chance to escape.

Among the more flagrant cases were: May 7, 1915, Lusitania, 114 Americans lost. Aug. 19, 1915, Arabia, 3 Americans lost. Sept. 4, 1915, Hesperian, 1 American lost. Oct. 28, 1916, Marina, 8 Americans lost. Dec. 14, 1916, Russian, 17 Americans lost. Feb. 26, 1917, Laconia, 8 Americans lost, March 16, 1917, Vigilancia, 5 Americans lost, (United States.)

March 21, 1917, Healdton, 7 Americans lost, (United States.)

April 1, 1917, Aztec, 28 Americans lost, (United States.)

Some on Aztec probably not American citizens, although she was a regular American ship.

In all, up to declaration of war by us, 226 American citizens, many of them women and children, had lost their lives by the action of German submarines, and in most instances without the faintest color of international right.

Losses of Other Neutrals

The President's reference to the destruction of "ships and people of other neutral and friendly nations" is supplemented with these facts:

The Norwegian Legation at London has announced that during February and March, 1917, 105 Norwegian vessels of over 228,000 tons have been sunk, and 106 persons thereon killed, and 222 are missing.

On Feb. 22, 1917, seven Dutch vessels which left an English port on promise of "relative security" from the Berlin authorities, were all attacked by German U-boats and six of them were sunk. Germany has admitted that its boats did the deed, and has expressed "regrets to Holland, although adding blandly" the incident proves how dangerous it is to navigate the prohibited zone, and gives expression to our wish that neutral

navigators remain in their ports." As a result of this policy of terrorism, the ships of Holland have been practically driven off the seas. Many of them have taken refuge in the harbors of the United States.

Spaniards have been exasperated by the destruction of their vessels, the most recent instance being that of a Spanish ship, with a Spanish cargo, sunk in Spanish waters. Swedish

oversea commerce is practically ruined by the fear of their owners at the indiscriminate ruthlessness of the submarine.

The United States Government made an official estimate that by April 1, 1917, no less than 668 neutral vessels had been sunk by German submarines since the beginning of the war. This did not include any American vessels. (New York Times History of the War, May, 1917, pp. 241 and 244.)

"The challenge is to all mankind. Each nation must decide for itself how it will meet it." To these words of the President's war message Professor Stearns adds this summary of what other nations have done:

Practically all the civilized neutral countries of the earth have protested at the German policy. Some, like Brazil, China, Bolivia, and Guatemala, have broken diplomatic relations with Germany.

The neutral States of Europe, fearful of being caught in the horrors of the great war, have protested just as far as they have dared. Holland and Denmark may, of course, at any time see a German army over their borders. Norway and Sweden are hardly in a safe position, but they have made their vehement protest at the German outrages. Spain, which had exercised a forbearance similar to that of the United States, has finally, after futile protests, been obliged (May 18, 1917) to send Germany a note in the nature of an ultimatum, demanding reparation for the past and guarantees for the future.

The statement that the motive of the United States in going to war would be "only the vindication of right" is elucidated thus:

Submarines are such exceptional instruments of warfare that it is held by authorities on international law that they ought never to submerge in neutral waters, otherwise it is impossible for a neutral to control them and be responsible for them as with ordinary visiting warships.

Says Professor Theodore S. Woolsey of Yale, a very high authority:

"I think there can be no doubt that the U-boat is to be regarded as a surface cruiser with no additional rights and privileges and with the same duties and liabilities. Hence in neutral waters it should not submerge. Submergence imperils neutrality by making the performance of neutral duties more ardu

ous and the evasion of neutral rights easier." (American Journal of International Law, January, 1917, p. 139.)

Arming Merchant Vessels

Concerning armed neutrality and its present impracticability in defending our right to use the seas without suffering "unlawful violence," this comment is offered:

In 1798, on account of the attacks on our commerce by French cruisers and privateers, Congress empowered President John Adams to arm merchant vessels, to let them defend themselves, and to let our warships attack the offending French vessels.

There were several really serious naval battles, (especially when the U. S. S. Constellation took the French frigate L'Insurgente, 1799,) and international experts are of the opinion that very probably an actual state of war existed. In any case the country was headed straight into war, and preparations were being made to raise a strong army with Washington again as commander, with Alexander Hamilton under him, while an alliance was being discussed with England. Then at the last moment Napoleon, who had just come to power, had the wisdom to offer terms President Adams.could accept. The German Imperial Government had no such wisdom or restraint.

"The German Government," said the President," denies the right of neutrals to use arms at all within the areas of the sea which it has proscribed even in the defense of rights which no modern publicist has ever before questioned their right to defend."

Editor's annotation:

Before the outbreak of the war the following were the standing orders in the German Navy for dealing with even enemy merchant vessels, and if that was the case how much more consideration should be given to neutrals. The new German orders are a brazen contradiction of their own previous precepts. (German Prize Code, p. 75.)

General orders of German Admiralty staff, Berlin, June 22, 1914. (Note date.)

"If an armed merchant vessel of the enemy offers armed resistance, such resistance may be overcome with all means possible. The crew are to be taken prisoners of war. The passengers are to be left to go free unless it appears that they participated in the resistance." (German Prize Code, p. 68, par. 116.) "Before proceeding to the destruction of the (neutral) vessel (which has been seized for proper reason) the safety of all persons on board, and, so far as possible, their effects, is to be provided for."

Dr. Wehberg, (great German authority on international law, quoted in American Journal of Int. Law, Oct., 1916, p. 871.)

"Every citizen has the right to demand the care and protection of the United States when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign Government."

See Cooley's "Principles of Constitutional Law," third edition, page 273, (standard authority.)

Obviously a Government which can not or will not protect its citizens against a policy of lawless murder is unworthy of respect abroad or obedience at home. The protection of the lives of the innocent and law-abiding is clearly the very first duty of a civilized State.

Declaration of War

In regard to the President's advice that Congress pronounce Germany's action to be "nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States," the editors remark:

Wars do not have to be declared in order to exist. The mere commission of warlike or unfriendly acts commences them. Thus the first serious clash in the Mexican war took place April 24, 1846. Congress recognized the state of war only on May 11 of that year. Already General Taylor had fought two serious battles at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma.

Many other like cases could be cited; the most recent was the outbreak of the war between Japan and Russia. In 1904 the Japanese attacked the Russian fleet before Port Arthur, and only several days after this battle was war "recognized."

If the acts of Germany were unfriendly, war

in the strictest sense existed when the President addressed Congress.

With reference to "the granting of adequate credits ":

Bills passed by Congress, with dates on which they were presented to President: April 5, S. J. Res. 1-Declaration of war. April 17, H. R. 12-Deficiency Appropriation bill for the year ending June, 1917.

April 23, H. R. 2,762-Bond Issue bill. April 23, H. R. 2,339-Increasing number of midshipmen at Annapolis.

April 23, H. R. 2,008-Extending minority enlistments in the navy.

April 23, H. R. 2,338-Authorizing additional officers for Hydrographic Office.

April 23, H. R. 2,300-Increasing age limit for officers in Naval Reserve.

April 23, H. R. 1,771-Amending Naval Appropriations act for the year ending June, 1917.

May 5, H. R. 2,893-Permitting foreign Governments to enlist their nationals residing in the United States.

May 10, S. J. Res. 42-Authorizing seizure of interned German ships.

May 11, H. R. 13-Army Appropriation bill for the year ending June, 1918.

May 15, H. R. 2,337-Enrollments of aliens in the Naval Reserve.

May 16, H. R. 3,330-Increasing Navy and Marine Corps to 150,000 men.

May 18, S. 1,871-Conscription bill. Bills in conference on May 17: April 16, H. R. 11-Sundry Civil Appropriations for the year ending June, 1918.

April 16, H. R. 10-Military Academy Appropriations for the year ending June, 1918. May 15, S. 2-Espionage bill.

Bills awaiting action of one house:

S. 383-Passed Senate April 9, punishing the destruction of war material.

H. R. 328-Passed House May 9, car shortage.

H. R. 3,971-Passed House May 2, Special War Appropriation bill.

The President said of the Entente Allies: "They are in the field, and we should help them in every way to be effective there." The editors make this comment:

To any one who will reflect upon the subject, it will soon appear to be preposterous folly to suggest that we go it alone " against Germany, and to fail to give all possible aid to her original enemies. Obviously unless we send munitions, troops, submarine chasers, &c., to France, England, and possibly Russia, since the German high sea fleet does not at present come out, the war for us will mean little more than calling names across the Atlantic-until the European war is ended, and then if Germany has a pound of strength left (and very possibly she might be victorious) she can vent on us all her hate and fury, and exact from us the indemnities