as in peace, and, in future, navies would be used simply for
fighting. Offensively, their purpose would be to bombard enemy
fortifications, to meet enemy ships in battle, and to convoy ships which
were transporting troops for the invasion of enemy soil; defensively,
their usefulness would consist in protecting the homeland from such
attacks and such invasions. Perhaps an argument can be made for this new
rule of warfare, but it is at once apparent that it is the most
startling proposal brought forth in modern times in the direction of
disarmament. It meant that Great Britain should abandon that agency of
warfare with which she had destroyed Napoleon, and with which she
expected to destroy Germany in the prevailing struggle--the blockade.
From a defensive standpoint, Colonel House's proposed reform would have
been a great advantage to Britain, for an honourable observance of the
rule would have insured the British people its food supply in wartime.
With Great Britain, however, the blockade has been historically an
offensive measure: it is the way in which England has always made war.
Just what reception this idea would have had with official London, in
April, 1915, had Colonel House been able to present it as his own
proposal, is not clear, but the Germans, with characteristic stupidity,
prevented the American from having a fair chance. The Berlin Foreign
Office at once cabled to Count Bernstorff and Bernhard Dernburg--the
latter a bovine publicity agent who was then promoting the German cause
in the American press--with instructions to start a "propaganda" in
behalf of the "freedom of the seas." By the time Colonel House reached
London, therefore, these four words had been adorned with the Germanic
label. British statesmen regarded the suggestion as coming from Germany
and not from America, and the reception was worse than cold.

And another tragedy now roughly interrupted President Wilson's attempts
at mediation. Page's letters have disclosed that he possessed almost a
clairvoyant faculty of foreseeing approaching events. The letters of the
latter part of April and of early May contain many forebodings of
tragedy. "Peace? Lord knows when!" he writes to his son Arthur on May
2nd. "The blowing up of a liner with American passengers may be the
prelude. I almost expect such a thing." And again on the same date: "If
a British liner full of American passengers be blown up, what will Uncle
Sam do? That's what's going to happe