FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189  
190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>   >|  
Germany's and disregarded the American ruling on armed merchantmen, which held that "the determination of warlike character must rest in no case upon presumption, but upon conclusive evidence." Berlin was looking for trouble. A period of complications in American-German relations was frankly predicted. The Administration was plainly concerned by the situation; but no decision to take action was forthcoming. Its hesitation appeared to be due to the apparent need for a further note to dispose of new interpretations Germany had ingeniously woven in her various excuses by way of evading the letter and spirit of the _Sussex_ agreement. One view of her submarine "rights" which Germany insisted on upholding was that armed merchantmen were not legally immune from attack on sight. Herr Zimmermann, the German Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, defined anew his Government's attitude: "As the armament of several British ships has been used for attack, and has therefore endangered the lives of crew and passengers, of course armed ships cannot be considered as peaceful trade boats." The cases of the _Marina_ and _Arabia_ put the German pledges to a test. Neither vessel attempted to escape nor offered resistance, though armed with a solitary gun. The issue therefore resolved itself into these considerations: First. Since the German submarine commanders have pleaded extenuating circumstances on which they based their presumption that the _Marina_ and _Arabia_, were transports, and not passenger vessels, were these circumstances sufficient to have justified the commanders in mistaking the two steamers for transports? Second. If there were such extenuating circumstances, were they such as to warrant the commanders in departing from the general rule laid down by the American Government in the _Sussex_ note, calling forth the pledges given by Germany in May, 1916, in which it was guaranteed that "in accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance?" Whatever intimation was made to Germany by the United States did not become public. By December, 1916, the whole question appeared to have been suddenly shelved by the peace proposals Germany hurled at the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189  
190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Germany
 

German

 

commanders

 

circumstances

 

American

 

vessels

 

Government

 

Sussex

 

attack

 
submarine

resistance

 

extenuating

 

transports

 

general

 

appeared

 

escape

 

Marina

 
Arabia
 
pledges
 
presumption

merchantmen

 

ruling

 

departing

 

warrant

 

Second

 

calling

 

disregarded

 

guaranteed

 
steamers
 

justified


pleaded
 
considerations
 

character

 
warlike
 
sufficient
 
accordance
 

mistaking

 

passenger

 
determination
 
United

States
 

intimation

 

Whatever

 
public
 
proposals
 

hurled

 

shelved

 

suddenly

 

December

 

question