Part 12 (1/2)

It was with the greatest pleasure that I heard from Secretary Baker that he had determined to promote Colonel Kuhn to the rank of General and make him head of our War College, where his teachings will prove of the greatest value to the armies of the United States.

Colonel House and his wife arrived to pay us a visit on March 19, 1915, and remained until the twenty-eighth. During this period the Colonel met all the princ.i.p.al members of the German Government and many men of influence and prominence in the world of affairs, such as Herr von Gwinner, head of the Deutsche Bank, and Dr. Walter Rathenau, who succeeded his father as head of the Allgemeine Elektricitats Gesellschaft and hundreds of other corporations. The Colonel dined at the house of Dr. Solf, the Colonial Minister, and lunched with von Gwinner.

In April, negotiations were continued about the sinking of the _William_P._Fry_, an American boat loaded with food and destined for Ireland. The American Government on behalf of the owners of the _William_P._Fry_ claimed damages for the boat.

Nothing was said about the cargo, but in the German answer it was stated that the cargo of the _William_P._Fry_ consisting of foodstuffs destined for an armed port of the enemy and, therefore, presumed to be destined for the armed forces of the enemy was, because of this, contraband. I spoke to von Jagow about this and told him that I thought that possibly this would seem to amount to a German justification of the British blockade of Germany.

He said that this note had been drawn by Director Kriege who was their expert on international law, and that he would not interfere with Kriege's work. Of course, as a matter of fact, all foodstuffs s.h.i.+pped to Germany would have to be landed at some armed port, and, therefore, according to the contentions of Germany, these would be supposed to be destined to the armed forces of the enemy and become contraband of war.

At international law, it had always been recognised that private individuals and corporations have the right to sell arms and ammunitions of war to any belligerent and, in the Hague Convention held in 1907, this right was expressly ratified and confirmed.

This same Director Kriege who represented Germany at this Hague Conference in 1907, in the debates on this point said: ”The neutral boats which engage in such a trade, commit a violation of the duties of neutrality. However, according to a principle generally recognised, the State of which the boat flies the flag is not responsible for this violation. The neutral States are not called upon to forbid their subjects a commerce which, from the point of view of the belligerents, ought to be considered as unlawful.”

(Conference International de la Paix, La Haye, 15 Juin-18 Octobre 1907. Vol. III, p. 859.)

During our trouble with General Huerta, arms and ammunition for Huerta's forces from Germany were landed from German s.h.i.+ps in Mexico. During the Boer war the Germans, who openly sympathised with the Boers, nevertheless furnished to England great quant.i.ties of arms and munitions, expressly destined to be used against the Boers; and this, although it was manifest that there was no possibility whatever that the Boers could obtain arms and munitions from German sources during the war. For instance, the firm of Eberhardt in Dusseldorf furnished one hundred and nine cannon, complete, with wagons, caissons and munitions, etc., to the English which were expressly designed for use against the Boers.

At one time the Imperial Foreign Office sent me a formal note making reference to a paragraph in former Amba.s.sador Andrew D.

White's autobiography with reference to the alleged stoppage in a German port of a boat laden with arms and ammunition, for use against the Americans in Cuba during the Spanish War. Of course, former Amba.s.sador White wrote without having the Emba.s.sy records at hand and those records show that the position he took at the time of this alleged stoppage was eminently correct.

The files show that he wrote the letter to the State Department in which he stated that knowledge came to him of the proposed sailing of this s.h.i.+p, but he did not protest because he had been advised by a Naval Attache that the United States did not have the right to interfere. The Department of State wrote to him commending his action in not filing any protest and otherwise interfering.

It seemed as if the German Government expressly desired to stir up hatred against America on this issue in order to force the American Government through fear of either the German Government, or the German-American propagandists at home, to put an immediate embargo on the export of these supplies.

In the autumn of 1914 Zimmermann showed me a long list sent him by Bernstorff showing quant.i.ties of saddles, automobiles, motor trucks, tires, explosives, foodstuffs and so on, exported from America to the Allies and intimated that this traffic had reached such proportions that it should be stopped.

In February, 1915, in the official _Communique_ of the day appeared the following statement: ”Heavy artillery fire in certain sections of the West front, mostly with American ammunition;”

and in April in the official _Communique_ something to this effect: ”Captured French artillery officers say that they have great stores of American ammunition.” I obtained through the State Department in Was.h.i.+ngton a statement from the French Amba.s.sador certifying that up to that time, the end of April, 1915, no sh.e.l.ls whatever of the French artillery had been furnished from America.

Nothing, however, would satisfy the Germans. They seemed determined that the export of every article, whether of food or munitions which might prove of use to the Allies in the war, should be stopped. Newspapers were filled with bitter attacks upon America and upon President Wilson, and with caricatures referring to the sale of munitions.

It never seemed to occur to the Germans that we could not violate the Hague Convention in order to change the rules of the game because one party, after the commencement of hostilities, found that the rule worked to his disadvantage. Nor did the Germans consider that America could not vary its international law with the changing fortunes of war and make one ruling when the Germans lost control of the sea and another ruling if they regained it.

From early in 1915 until I left Germany, I do not think I ever had a conversation with a German without his alluding to this question. Shortly before leaving Germany, in January, 1917, and after I had learned of the probability of the resumption of ruthless submarine war, at an evening party at the house of Dr. Solf, the Colonial Minister, a large German who turned out to be one of the Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, planted himself some distance away from me and addressed me in German saying, ”You are the American Amba.s.sador and I want to tell you that the conduct of America in furnis.h.i.+ng arms and ammunition to the enemies of Germany is stamped deep on the German heart, that we will never forget it and will some day have our revenge.” He spoke in a voice so loud and slapped his chest so hard that everyone in the room stopped their conversation in order to hear. He wore on his breast the orders of the Black Eagle, the Red Eagle, the Elephant and the Seraphim, and when he struck all this menagerie the rattle alone was quite loud. I reminded him politely of the Hague Convention, of the fact that we could not change international law from time to time with the change in the situation of the war, and that Germany had furnished arms to England to use against the Boers. But he simply answered, ”We care nothing for treaties,”

and my answer, ”That is what they all say,” was a retort too obvious to be omitted.

The German press continually published articles to the effect that the war would be finished if it were not for the s.h.i.+pment of supplies from America. All public opinion was with the German Government when the warning was issued on February fourth, 1915, stating that the blockade of England would commence on the eighteenth and warning neutral s.h.i.+ps to keep out of the war zone. From then on we had constant cases and crises with reference to the sinking of American boats by the German submarine. There were the cases of the _Gulfflight_ and the _Cus.h.i.+ng_ and the _Falaba_, an English boat sunk without warning on which Americans were killed. On May sixth, 1915, Director Kriege of the Foreign Office asked Mr. Jackson to call and see him, and told him that he would like to have the following three points brought to the attention of the American public:

”1. As the result of the English effort to stop all foreign commerce with Germany, Germany would do everything in her power to destroy English commerce and merchant s.h.i.+pping. There was, however, never at any time an intention to destroy or interfere with neutral commerce or to attack neutral s.h.i.+pping unless engaged in contraband trade. In view of the action of the British Government in arming merchant vessels and causing them to disguise their national character, the occasional destruction of a neutral s.h.i.+p was unavoidable. Naval officers in command of submarines had been instructed originally, and new and more stringent instructions had been issued repeatedly, to use the utmost care, consistent with their own safety, to avoid attacks on neutral vessels.

”2. In case a neutral s.h.i.+p should be destroyed by a submarine the German Government is prepared to make an immediate and formal expression of its regret and to pay an indemnity, without having recourse to a prize court.

”3. All reports with regard to the destruction of a neutral vessel by a German submarine are investigated at once by both the German Foreign Office and Admiralty and the result is communicated to the Government concerned, which is requested in return to communicate to the German Government the result of its own independent investigation. Where there is any material divergence in the two reports as to the presumed cause of destruction (torpedo or mine), the question is to be submitted to investigation by a commission composed of representatives of the two nations concerned, with a neutral arbiter whose decision will be final. This course has already been adopted in two cases, in which a Dutch and a Norwegian vessel, respectively, were concerned. The German Government reserves its right to refuse this international arbitration in exceptional cases where for military reasons the German Admiralty are opposed to its taking place.”

Director Kriege told Mr. Jackson that a written communication in which the substance of the foregoing would be contained, would soon to be made to the Emba.s.sy.

Mr. Jackson put this conversation down in the form above given and showed Director Kriege a copy of it. Later in the day Geheimrat Simon called on Mr. Jackson at the Emba.s.sy and said that Dr.

Kriege would like to have point two read as follows:

”In case _through_any_unfortunate_mistake_a_neutral_s.h.i.+p_,”

and continuing to the end; and that Dr. Kriege would like to change what was written on point three beginning with ”Where there is” so that it should read, as follows:--”Where there is any material divergence in the two reports as to the presumed cause of destruction (torpedo or mine), the German Government has already in several instances declared its readiness to submit the question to the decision of an international commission in accordance with the Hague Convention for the friendly settlement of international disputes.”