3. Germany has now "decided to make further concession, adapting the methods of submarine warfare to the interest of neutrals." 4. But before it states this concession the note in defense of German conduct declares : It was not the German Government, but the British Government, which, by ignoring all the accepted rules of international law, extended this terrible war to the lives and property of non-combatants, having no regard whatever for the interests and rights of neutrals and noncombatants, which through this method of war fare have been severely injured. In self-defense against the illegal conduct of British warfare, while fighting a bitter struggle for national existence. Germany had to resort to the hard but effective weapon of submarine warfare. Then follows a passage which has been widely resented in America as bitter and arrogant : As matters stand the German Government cannot but reiterate its regrets that the sentiments of humanity which the Government of the United States extends with such fervor to the unhappy victims of submarine warfare were not extended with the same warmth of feeling to the many millions of women and children who, according to the avowed intention of the British Government, shall be starved, and who, by their sufferings, shall force the victorious armies of the Central Powers into ignominious capitulation. The note continues at great length (more than half the entire space is given to the subject) to argue that Great Britain has repeatedly violated international law at sea, and that the United States should have prevented this, instead of which "the German people is under the impression that the Government of the United States, while demanding that Germany, struggling for existence, shall restrain the use of an effective weapon, and while making compliance with these demands a condition for the maintenance of relations with Germany, confines itself to protests against the illegal methods adopted by Germany's enemies." Moreover, it is said, Americans are sending munitions to the Allies, and therefore appeals for humanity to Germany "cannot meet with the same hearty response" which they otherwise might have. Nevertheless, "the German Government, conscious of Germany's strength, twice within the last few months announced before the world its readiness to make peace on a basis safeguarding Germany's vital interests, thus indicating that it is not Germany's fault if peace is still withheld from the nations of Europe." 5. Then at last comes the "concession" in these words: In accordance with the general principles of visit, search, and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared to be a naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning, without saving human lives, unless the ships attempt to escape or offer resistance. 6. Following the "concession" is that which has generally been regarded here as what lawyers call a "condition precedent." We quote in full: But neutrals cannot expect that Germany, forced to fight for existence, shall, for the sake of neutral interest, abandon the use of an effective weapon if the enemy is permitted to continue to apply at will methods of warfare violating the rules of international law. Such demand would be incompatible with the character of neutrality, and the German Government is convinced that the Government of the United States does not think of making such a demand, knowing that the Government of the United States repeatedly declares that it is determined to restore the principle of the freedom of the seas from whatever quarter it has been violated. Accordingly the German Government is confident that in consequence of new orders issued to the naval forces, the Government of the United States will now also confer [evidently meaning "see to it "] that all impediments are removed which may have been in the way of mutual co-operation toward the restoration of the freedom of the seas during the war as sug. gested in the note of July 23, 1915, and it does not doubt that the United States will now demand and insist that the British Government shall forthwith observe the rules of international law universally recognized before the war, as are laid down in the notes presented by the Government of the United States to the British Government December 26, 1914, and November 5, 1915. Should the steps taken by the Government of the United States not attain the object it desires -to have the laws of humanity followed by all belligerent nations-the German Government 1916 GERMANY'S SUBMARINE WARFARE would then be facing a new situation in which it must reserve to itself complete liberty of decision. THE AMERICAN REPLY On May 8 Ambassador Gerard was instructed to lay a reply before the German Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is signed by Mr. Lansing, and, omitting formalities, is printed entire below: It is especially noted, as indicating the purpose of the Imperial Government as to the future, that it "is prepared to do its utmost to confine the operations of the war for the rest of its duration to the fighting forces of the belligerents" and that it is determined to impose upon all its commanders at sea the limitations of the recognized rules of international law upon which the Government of the United States has insisted. Throughout the months which have elapsed since the Imperial Government announced, on February 4, 1915, its submarine policy, now happily abandoned, the Government of the United States has been constantly guided and restrained by motives of friendship in its patient efforts to bring to an amicable settlement the critical questions arising from that policy. Accepting the Imperial Government's declaration of its abandonment of the policy which has so seriously menaced the good relations between the two countries, the Government of the United States will rely upon a scrupulous execution henceforth of the now altered policy of the Imperial Government, such as will remove the principal danger to an interruption of the good relations existing between the United States and Germany. The Government of the United States feels it necessary to state that it takes it for granted that the Imperial German Government does not intend to imply that the maintenance of its newly announced policy is in any way contingent upon the course or result of diplomatic negotiations between the Government of the United States and any other belligerent Government, notwithstanding the fact that certain passages in the Imperial Government's note of the fourth instant might appear to be susceptible of that construction. In order, however, to avoid any misunderstanding, the Government of the United States 123 notifies the Imperial Government that it cannot for a moment entertain, much less discuss, a suggestion that respect by German naval authorities for the rights of citizens of the United States upon the high seas should in any way or in the slightest degree be made contingent upon the conduct of any other Government affecting the rights of neutrals and non-combatants. Responsibility in such matters is single, not joint; absolute, not relative. In a separate statement the Secretary of State declares that "in our dealings with the British Government we are acting as we are unquestionably bound to act in view of the explicit treaty engagements with that Government." This refers to the arbitration treaty with Great Britain. Such a treaty might not apply to a continuing menace to American lives, but in the questions between us and the British Government there is no such menace involved as there is in the case of German submarine warfare. PRESS COMMENT The comments of American editorial writers on Germany's promise are in interesting contrast to the comments which greeted a similar promise last fall. In September, after one of the American notes, the German Government promised not to torpedo "liners" without warning, and American newspapers broke into a chorus of jubilation at the great diplomatic victory of the American Government. Now Germany has made a much broader promise, not confining it to liners, but extending it to merchantmen recognized by international law; but there is no longer any fulsome praise for American diplomacy. The editorial writers are not ready to celebrate again a victory in advance. The majority of newspapers take the view of the President, that Germany's note is equivalent to an acquiescence in our demands, but there are a great number of newspapers which see in the conditions attached to the German so-called "concession" a virtual negation of the pledge. In printing the following contributions-an article by Mr. MacManus, a poem by Thomas MacDonagh, and a letter by Mrs. Moore-The Outlook is endeavoring as well as it can in a brief space to give its readers some impression of the spirit, character, and purposes of the radical Irish revolutionists whose uprising has just ended in such tragedy. Mr. MacManus is well known to Americans as a writer and lecturer on Irish subjects. He was educated in Donegal and became an Irish village schoolmaster, but soon turned to literature, and has written and published many stories, poems, and plays. We do not know where Americans can get a more accurate or more delightful impression of Irish rural and village life than in his volume "Yourself and the Neighbors." Mr. MacManus was a personal friend of Mr. Padraic Pearse, who was the Provisional President of the Irish Republic, and therefore the most responsible figure in the recent Irish revolt in Dublin. Padraic Pearse first became interested in the Irish political movement through his profound interest in the Gaelic revival in that country. He became a thorough Irish scholar, and took a prominent part in the literary side of the Gaelic revival. Thus it will be seen that Mr. Pearse's first interests in Ireland were those of a scholar and a lover of Irish literature. Although a young man at the time of his death, he had traveled through Europe studying the various educational systems, and came back and established in Dublin a few years ago a boys' secular school, the chief function of which was to promote a spirit of Irish patriotism and a love of all things Irish among the pupils. Mr. MacManus describes him as a man of singularly gentle, sweet, and noble character and personality. Thomas MacDonagh was one of the seven leaders of the Irish insurrection who signed the Declaration of Irish Independence. He was shot to death in the Tower of London on Wednesday, May 2. He was Assistant Professor of English Literature in the National University, Dublin. He had published four books of verse: April and May," "Through the Ivory Gate," "Songs of Myself," and "Lyrical Poems." A play of his, "When the Dawn Is Come "-dealing, by the way, with an Irish insurrection of the future-was produced in the Abbey Theater. He wrote a book on English verse, "Thomas Campion and English Metrics." Mrs. Moore is a woman of Irish birth, but has lived for several years in America and is a graduate of Columbia University; she is a sister of Francis Hackett, who has achieved no little distinction as a writer and critic, and who is one of the members of the editorial staff of the" New Republic." That imagination and a simple idealism, which takes little account of the human difficulties that must be met in a spirit of compromise in all political relations, furnished the chief motive power in the recent uprising in Dublin is, we think, indicated by the tone, spirit, and rhetoric of the Irish contributions which we here present to our readers. An editorial showing the relation of this revolt to the history of the struggle for freedom in Ireland is printed elsewhere in this issue.—THE EDITORS. A I-IRELAND'S CASE (PARTLY) BY SEUMAS MACMANUS SI pushed back my chair from the dinner-table last night my telephone rang, and the kindly voice of the editor of The Outlook came over the wire asking me if I could give to The Outlook, in fifteen hundred words, the views of the Irishrevolutionists (he purposely refrained from using any derogatory term) and of myself. Feeling grateful for the philological leniency, I gladly consented. He suggested that I treat the subject under three heads, and asked me three questions. First, he asked, What fundamental injustice of British rule do the Irish revolutionists complain of? The all-sufficient reply, for any thinking and freedom-leving American, should be, BRITISH RULE. If the editor, emerging from The Outlook's office, discovered a prostrate little man violently struggling to throw off the grasp of a brawny big brute, and he, in all seriousness, asked the little man what fundamental injustice of the large gentleman's protectorate he complained of, a look of pained surprise would undoubtedly sweep over the little man's countenance the while he emitted language unsuited for The Outlook, but the gist of which would be a query as to why in heaven the big brute should undertake to "protect " him. I know there is a multitude who will agree (Continued on page following illustrations) FIREMEN DECORATED BY THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY America has had no recent occasion to bestow military medals like those which have been issued in unprecedented numbers in Europe since the war began, but she has her civic heroes. Twenty-five of these heroes of peace were recently presented with medals by Mayor Mitchel, of New York. The picture shows the Mayor pinning the Hurley Medal to the breast of Clarence A. Walsh, who distinguished himself in saving life at a disastrous factory fire The first of May has for several years been set apart in New York City as a fitting time for a labor parade. The unsettled condition in many lines of industry in that city this season lent special interest to the recent procession. Strikers this year led the parade, taking the place of honor from the Socialists. From twenty to thirty thousand men and women are estimated to have been in line PHOTOGRAPH FROM PAUL THOMPSON |