had
really served its purpose without being adopted. "The main object of
the resolution," he said, "was to prevent this country being plunged
into war with one or more of the belligerent nations, simply because
of the heedless act of some indiscreet American citizens, and I feel
sure that this object has now been attained."

But the object the President sought, which was a virtual vote of
confidence, by both Houses of Congress, on his submarine policy, had
not been attained, and would not until the resolution had been brought
into the open House and squarely voted upon. The issue between the
House and the President had gone too far for further cross-fires of
parliamentary moves to succeed in preventing the resolution from
coming to a vote, and, on March 7, 1916, it reached this crucial stage
and was defeated by 276 to 143, after six hours of turbulent debate.

The majority of 133 in favor of shelving the resolution, achieved by
the aid of many Republican votes, was interpreted as a decisive
compliance with the request of the President.

The voting in both the House and Senate on the armed-merchantmen issue
ranged more on geographical than on political divisions, and
indicated that on questions of foreign policy Congressional sentiment
was governed by sectional, not by party lines. Thus, of the fourteen
votes cast in the Senate against "tabling" the Gore resolution twelve
were recorded by Senators from States west of Indiana and Lake
Michigan, while a geographical analysis of the House vote revealed
that President Wilson met the strongest opposition from the Middle
West delegations, and derived his chief support from the Atlantic
Seaboard States.

Secretary Lansing later issued a ruling of the State Department
defining the status of armed merchant ships. Germany was thereby
notified that the United States recognized the equity of her
argument--that if a vessel was armed and used its armament to attack a
submarine the latter could not be called upon to give warning in
advance, for in so doing the safety of the submarine and its crew was
imperiled. But the United States reiterated what it had frequently
pointed out before as the only criterion governing such
occurrences--each case must be judged by itself. Only a belligerent
vessel which had been proved guilty of such an offensive use of
armament could be regarded as a warship. The presence of armament
could not of itself be construed as a presumption of hostility.