other than that accorded persons who are on board a warship. A private vessel, engaged in seeking enemy naval craft, without such a commission or orders from its Government, stands in a relation to the enemy similar to that of a civilian who fires upon the organized military forces of a belligerent, and is entitled to no more considerable treatment.'

These are so clear that further comment of mine is useless, and in concluding this brief treatment of the attitude of the United States on the subject of armed merchantmen, only one consideration need be stressed. Nothing has been said here about the German claim that British merchant vessels were armed for offense against submarines. If true, the situation would be altered, but in no case has Germany been able to relieve herself of liability to the United States on the basis of her plea that a defensively armed vessel is not undefended territory. She has, to be sure, claimed, as she did in the Lusitania case, that the ship sunk carried a gun, but the United States has had no difficulty in traversing these contentions. The German decree of January 31, 1917, furthermore, does not confine the operations of submarines

to armed vessels and thus America's case against Germany is firmly established without the necessity of rebutting the German plea that an armed vessel can be sunk without warning.

CHAPTER IX

THE "SUSSEX” AND THE PLEDGES CONDITIONALLY

RENEWED

GERMAN submarine activities against shipping began on March 1st, the day the new campaign was to go into effect, but the sinkings were indiscriminate and were not confined to merchantmen that carried armament. Thus the status of armed merchant vessels was not introduced to embarrass the United States or to excuse Germany. The unarmed French liner Patria from Naples to New York was attacked by a submarine north of Tunis but was able to escape. The Norwegian bark Silius while lying at anchor in Havre Roads was torpedoed without warning on March 9th and of the seven Americans in the crew, one was injured. Of three Americans on board the Dutch liner Tubantia in the North Sea all were saved, but during this same period Ambassador Gerard

was requested to obtain prompt reports from the Imperial German Government as to their responsibility for the sinking of the Englishman, the Manchester Engineer, the Eagle Point, and the Berwindale, all of which had Americans on board. But the crowning outrage came on March 24th when the channel steamer Sussex, an unarmed passenger boat, was sunk without warning. Several Americans were among the passengers who were killed or injured.

The reply to Mr. Gerard's inquiry as to whether German submarines were responsible —that they were was indisputable from the fact that in several instances periscopes or the underseas boats themselves had been visiblewas dated April 10th. It first considered the four minor cases concerning which inquiry had been made. The Berwindale, the Englishman, and the Eagle Point had all tried to escape and had been shelled in order to compel surrender. Time was afforded for the crews to leave before the sinkings were effected. In the case of the Manchester Engineer, the investigation had not been concluded. As for the Sussex, Germany attempted to make the extraordinary plea

that her submarines had not been responsible for this outrage.

In the locality in which the Sussex sank, it was explained, a German submarine commander encountered what seemed to him to be a war vessel. "He was led to this conviction, one, by the flush of the vessel; two, by the warship form of stern, protruding diagonally backward and then falling downward; three, by the warshiplike coat of paint; four, by the high speed of about eighteen sea miles developed by the vessel; five, by the circumstances that the vessel did not follow" the naval course for merchant shipping, "but sailed in the middle of the channel, pointing about for Havre." The vessel was torpedoed and a severe explosion tore loose the whole foreship up to the bridge. This warranted "the safe conclusion that there were large quantities of ammunition on board." To the note were attached sketches made by the submarine commander of the vessel he sank at this time, and a sketch of the Sussex taken from the London Daily Graphic. A comparison of the pictures would show that the two vessels were not identical. Under these circumstances,