In the night of the 15th the sorely tried French forces continued to bear the brunt of German fury around Craonne and Mont Carnillet. Raids they made in the region of Hill 304, on the heights of the Meuse, broke down with heavy losses. East of Rheims the French were successful in minor operations in which they captured a good number of prisoners. Artillery duels were almost continuous on the following day north and south of the Ailette River, in the Champagne, and in the region of the heights of Carnillet and Blond. The Germans won a section of trench in neighborhood of Courcy, but later were driven out or destroyed by the French in a counterattack.

East of Monchy-le-Preux the Germans after a heavy bombardment of British positions made an attack in force that was entirely successful in gaining the first-line defenses. The British were driven back with considerable losses to their main new position on Infantry Hill.

After the disastrous experience of the German airmen during the battle of Messines Ridge their flying forces adopted the familiar tactics of mass formation. The British air pilots seldom encountered in these June days squadrons of less than fifteen machines, and occasionally they met aerial armies of as many as sixty planes. In some battles in the second week of June, 1917, between seventy and eighty machines were involved. Most of these air fights took place inside German territory, and despite superior numbers the British Royal Flying Corps continued to prove their superiority in the air over the Teutons. In one of these aerial battles, when a large number of planes were engaged, the British pilots smashed ten German machines, while only two British flyers were compelled to withdraw from the fight, one of them making a successful landing within his own lines.

Of the reckless bravery displayed by some of the younger members of the Royal Flying Corps many authentic stories are told. One intrepid British pilot coolly took up a position over a German aerodrome at a considerable distance within the enemy lines. There were seven machines in the aerodrome when the British flyer took up his position above, and as they issued forth first one and then two at a time he attacked and in every instance was successful in smashing or in driving out of control the German machine.

On the Arras battle front on June 19, 1917, the British gained some ground south of the Cojeul River, capturing during the operation thirty-five prisoners.

French positions between the Ailette River and Laffaux Hill in the Champagne and northwest of Rheims were on this date the special marks for the concentrated fire of German guns. French outposts were attacked at Mont Teton and Mont Carnillet (an almost daily occurrence this summer), but the Germans were unable to gain any advantage and were driven back to their trenches with heavy losses.

The British were successful on June 20, 1917, in regaining the Monchy position which had been lost some days before. It was of utmost value that this point should be wrested from German hands if the advance was to continue, and the British were correspondingly elated that they had possession of it again.

South of La Fere the French attacked during the night following the 21st, and penetrating German lines in the region of Beauton, destroyed large numbers of the enemy and brought back prisoners. In the Champagne after severe artillery preparation the Germans attacked French trenches on Teton Height and to the east of this position on a front of 400 yards. The Germans employed strong forces in the operation, and in a daring push in which they sacrificed large numbers of men they succeeded in penetrating advanced positions. But they were unable to hold them long, when the French came back in a dashing assault that swept them out and back to their own lines. On the following day the French in a brilliant movement made on a 600-yard front advanced their line 600 yards nearer to Mont Carnillet.

It was in this region that a unit consisting of only sixty-two French Grenadiers and portable machine guns occupied a position that the Germans coveted. The Germans attacked with a strong force, but the stout-hearted defenders, though vastly outnumbered, not only drove them back, but pressed on in pursuit, capturing a considerable length of German trenches and killing more than 200.

In the Chemin-des-Dames on June 22, 1917, the Germans launched a number of attacks, which led to some desperate engagements. In the vicinity of La Royere Farm the ground was covered with the bodies of German dead, according to the statements of correspondents on the field. The Germans at a heavy cost only succeeded in gaining possession of a short section of a French front trench.

Rheims continued to be the mark on which the Germans vented their anger when things went wrong, and on the 22d they threw 1,200 shells into the cathedral city.

The British had made no sensational advances in France for some time, but along the entire 120-mile front occupied they continued to maintain strong pressure on the enemy positions. During the night of the 24th they carried out a number of successful local operations. One of these enterprises was of importance, as it increased the British grip around Lens. Attacking by starlight the British troops stormed and captured 400 yards of front-line trenches east of Riaumont Wood, in the western outskirts of Lens, thus drawing closer the ring of iron with which they were hemming in the French mining center.

In numerous raids carried out in the night on enemy trenches in the vicinity of Bullecourt, Roeux, Loos, and Hooge, much damage was wrought to German defenses and a considerable number of prisoners were captured. One daring body of British troops remained for two hours in German trenches, blowing up dugouts and inflicting serious casualties on the garrison.

In the general advance on Lens the Canadians occupied the strongest outpost in the defense of that place and had pushed forward to La Coulotte. The object of the British command was to exert extreme pressure on the enemy and at the same time keep down the casualties, and this they were successful in doing.

Patrols sent out reached the crown of Reservoir Hill without meeting opposing forces and pressed on down the eastern slope to occupy the strong Lens outpost. South of the Souchez River the Canadians were pressing on the very heels of the retreating Germans. Railway embankments southeast of the Lens electric station were occupied, and the advance was then continued toward La Coulotte.

For several days the Germans had been destroying houses in the western part of the mining center, in order to secure a wider area of fire for their guns. This movement suggested to the British command that they intended to cling as long as possible to the eastern side of the city and to prolong the fight to the bitter end by house-to-house fighting.

In the night of June 25, 1917, the French made a brilliant attack northwest of Hurtebise on a strongly organized German position. They gained all their objectives and the rapidity with which the attack was carried out proved a crushing surprise to the Germans who lost in the fight and in counterattacks ten officers and over 300 of other ranks.

Among the positions captured by the French in the operations in this region was the "Cave of the Dragon," which was more than 100 yards wide and 300 yards deep, and had been converted into a strong fortress. The cavern had numerous exits and openings through which machine guns could be fired. Here the French captured a vast amount of war material, including nine machine guns in good condition, ammunition depots, and a hospital relief outpost.

In the morning of June 27, 1917, the Canadians, encouraged by their recent successes, which had been won at slight cost, decided to attack across the open ground sloping upward to Avion and the village of Leauvette near the Souchez River. The assaulting troops consisted of men from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, and the British army contained no more daring fighters. The attack was a success, except at one point, where the Germans were strong in machine guns, and were surrounded by barbed-wire entanglements of a peculiarly complicated sort. Here the sturdy men from overseas were unable to gain their objectives, but at other points they gained valuable ground.

In the following night, during a heavy rainstorm, the British attacked a number of the southwesterly suburbs of Lens, including the one known as Avion. They won all their first objectives, and captured over 200 prisoners. The fighting was in and out of ruined buildings, collieries, pit derricks, and the usual structures of a mining settlement. It was continued on the following day, advance being made on a total front of about four miles to a depth of over a mile. The result of these attacks was to give the British a series of strongly organized defensive systems on both banks of the river Souchez covering Lens.

On the same night the suburbs of the mining center were attacked, the British captured German forward positions south and west of Oppy in the Arras sector on a front of about 2,000 yards.

On the 28th and 29th of June, 1917, the Germans launched by night powerful attacks in the Verdun sector near Hill 304 and Avocourt Wood. They succeeded in piercing French first lines over the whole front attacked, but were subsequently driven out, except at one point, on the slope of Dead Man Hill, where they clung tenaciously, defying every attempt made by the French to regain the position.



CHAPTER LX

THE GERMANS DEFEAT BRITISH ON BELGIAN COAST—INTENSE FIGHTING IN THE CHAMPAGNE AND AT VERDUN

In the first days of July, 1917, the Verdun sector became the scene of some of the heaviest fighting on the western front. The Germans seemed determined to redeem their failures in this area in the previous year and engaged in daily assaults with large numbers of picked forces. The German High Command had circulated so many stories regarding the declining strength of the French troops and of their weakened morale that they must have come to believe their own inventions. The soldiers of the Republic certainly did their best to convince the German command that they were very much alive and in good fighting trim. Most of the German attacks in the Verdun sector were repulsed, but they succeeded in retaining some conquered ground on the west slope of Dead Man Hill. On the Aisne front during the night of June 30, 1917, the Germans attacked near Cerny and Corbeny, when their storming detachments were almost annihilated by the devastating fire of the French artillery. To the northeast of Cerny the Germans succeeded in gaining a small salient which had first been leveled by their guns.

South of Lens the British continued to make progress, capturing a good portion of the German trench system in this area and taking a number of prisoners. British aviators on this front maintained successfully their supremacy of the air. In the space of twenty-four hours they brought down five German aeroplanes, and four others were driven out of control, while only one British machine was missing.

Heavy artillery fighting continued during July 1, 1917, in the sector between Cerny and Ailles on the French front. At a late hour French troops carried out a spirited attack on both sides of the Ailles-Paissy road and ejected the Germans from the trenches they had captured in the previous week. In the night of July 2, 1917, the Germans made a strong counterattack in an endeavor to oust the French from their regained position, but were repulsed. In the course of the night several more attacks were made by the Germans, who, thrown back in every instance, finally abandoned the effort when day was breaking.

On the left bank of the Meuse, on the Verdun front, violent artillery fighting continued the greater part of the night on the same date between Hill 304 and Avocourt Wood. Early in the morning following the Germans attacked on a front of 500 yards at the southeast corner of the wood. The assaults broke down under the devastating French fire and no attempt was made to renew the effort.

On the British front no important actions were fought during the first week of July, 1917, but everywhere defenses were strengthened and the pressure on the German positions became unceasingly intense. Southwest of Hollebeke in Belgium the British advanced their lines on a front of about 600 yards during the night of July 4, 1917. Successful raids in the vicinity of Wieltje and Nieuport resulted in the capture of a good number of prisoners.

On the Verdun front the Germans renewed their offensive without obtaining any important progress. Heavy artillery fighting continued near Moronvilliers in the Champagne and around Hill 304.

German positions west and north of this hill were subjected to a destructive fire of French batteries during the day of July 5, 1917, and with such good effect that the enemy guns only feebly replied.

Near Louvemont, on the left bank of the Meuse, the French were successful in several encounters with German patrols, which they dispersed after sharp fighting, killing a number and taking prisoners.

In the Champagne, especially at Le Casque and Le Teton, there was active artillery fighting throughout the day. In the region between the Miette and the Aisne the Germans attacked three French posts, but were driven off by the French artillery fire.

The British now took the offensive and advanced their line on a 600-yard front south of Ypres, near Hollebeke, and continued to exert pressure on the German lines. On the 7th a further push forward was made east of Wytschaete in Belgium.

The French sector of the Chemin-des-Dames to the south of Filain was menaced at all times because it was dominated by the ancient fort of Malmaison in possession of the enemy. In the early morning of July 9, 1917, the Germans began an intense bombardment of this sector and then attempted to rush ten or twelve infantry battalions into the French positions. A brigade of the famous Chasseurs-a-pied holding the line were forced back by overwhelming numbers. The Germans evidently thought that success was certain, for they had brought with them quantities of barbed wire, boxes of grenades, and trench mortars, and everything that was needed to organize the position whose capture would give them the command of a considerable section of Chemin-des-Dames.

They failed, however, to consider the indomitable French spirit. The Chasseurs had only retreated a short distance when they gathered together engineers and reservists who had been working on roads in the rear and rushed back, and by a series of brilliant counterattacks ejected or killed most of the Germans in spite of their heroic resistance, capturing large quantities of their war material and reoccupying the line almost to its fullest extent.

The Germans having obtained reenforcements, fought furiously to regain the lost position, but the French elated by their success redoubled their efforts to destroy the enemy and the shell craters, and communication trenches were soon encumbered with German dead. The French losses in the fighting here were severe, but as they occupied safer positions the Germans' casualties were far greater. The fighting was so intense throughout the action that very few prisoners were taken by either side. A group of French soldiers who had been made prisoners and brought to the German second line attacked their guard and fled to their own lines, escaping without hurt the intense fire directed against them.

On this date, July 10, 1917, the Germans delivered a smashing blow against the British lines north of Nieuport on the Belgian coast. For twenty-four hours the Germans had maintained an intense bombardment which lasted from 6 o'clock in the morning of the 10th up to midnight and was renewed again at dawn on the following day. The firing was on such a huge scale that it could be distinctly heard as far as London. The effect of this bombardment was to level all the British defenses in the dune sector and to destroy their bridges over the Yser. According to the Berlin reports 1,250 men were captured by the Germans in this battle.

To the southward, in the region, of Lombaertzyde, the Germans only obtained a temporary success, the British in a strong counterattack driving them out of the positions they had won before they had time to organize for defense.

That the Germans were enabled to succeed in this coup was largely owing to the weather conditions. A heavy gale was blowing on the Belgian coast and British naval support was impossible. The Germans enjoyed the advantage of having strong coast batteries all along the dunes which they could move about at will from one point to another. There was, however, no blinking the fact that a weak point existed in the British defenses. Such success as the Germans won was attributed by some critics to their superiority in the air, the British at the time being short of machines.

The net gains to the Germans in this battle was the capture of British positions on a front of 1,400 yards to a depth of 600 yards. The British losses in the shelled terrain between the river Yser and the sea were estimated at 1,800.

During the night of July 11, 1917, British naval aeroplanes carried out successful raids in Flanders in and near five towns, when several tons of bombs were dropped with good results. Railway lines and an electric power station at Zarren were attacked by gunfire from the air, and bombs were dropped on a train near St. Denis-Westrem. The British airmen's bombs caused a fire near Ostend, and heavy explosions at the Varssenaere railway dump followed by an intense conflagration which was still flaming fiercely when the British returned safely to their own lines.

On the French front there was increasing aerial activity on July 12, 1917, on both sides from daybreak to midnight. In some cases as many as thirty machines were actively engaged. As a result of these encounters fourteen German aeroplanes were brought down and sixteen others were driven out of control. Nine British machines were counted missing.

Fighting continued daily in the Champagne and at frequent intervals. The Germans were paying a high price for every foot of ground gained and learned at the cost of heavy sacrifices that the French were as strong as ever, notwithstanding a report to the contrary was circulated by the German High Command that they were short of men and would be unable to fight much longer.

On July 14, 1917, the French scored a double victory when they occupied five heights among a clump of hills known as the Moronvilliers Massif to the east of Rheims. The positions won were of the first importance whereby the Germans lost their principal observatories in this region. The French occupied all the crests of the hills, but some of the slopes were held by the Germans, from which points of vantage they were able to watch the movements of their opponents.

The net gains to the French during the day included a network of German trenches on a front of over 800 yards to a depth of 300 yards, while the prisoners captured numbered 360, including nine officers.

On the left bank of the Meuse, in the Verdun sector, around Hill 304 and Dead Man Hill, artillery duels were continuous during the night of July 13, 1917.

The loss of the strong positions on the Moronvilliers hills, the chief observation posts in the region, spurred the Germans on to make frequent and frenzied attempts to force the French out. In the night of July 15, 1917, the hills were subjected to sustained and violent bombardment. It was followed by German attacks on Mont Haut and a height known as the Teton. At Mont Haut the Germans succeeded in penetrating French positions, but were driven out by a brilliant counterattack. The fighting lasted throughout the night, and was of the most violent description. By morning the French had thrust the Germans back and held all positions on the hills securely. The Germans had gained only a short stretch of trench near Mont Haut, which for the time they were able to hold possession.

On the left bank of the Meuse, in the Verdun sector, to the west of Hill 304, the French carried out a dashing operation early in the morning of July 17, 1917. After strong artillery preparation that had lasted all through the previous night the French attacked, and notwithstanding the stubborn and energetic resistance of the enemy, recaptured in a few minutes all the positions that the Germans had occupied since June 29, 1917. Following up the advantage thus gained the French carried German positions beyond their objectives to a depth of 2,000 yards on both sides of the road between Esnes and Malancourt. All the first German line was captured, and a little later after the most intense fighting the second line was carried. The French gained ground in this advance to a depth of over a mile. The number of unwounded prisoners captured reached 425, of whom eight were officers.

The loss of such important positions in the Verdun sector stimulated the Germans to make repeated endeavors to recapture them, and during the night of July 17, 1917, they delivered furious counterattacks preceded by intense artillery preparations. The assaults were all repulsed by the French, and at no point were the Germans enabled to gain even a temporary footing.

In the evening of July 18, 1917, the Germans attacked the French lines south of St. Quentin over a front of about half a mile. They succeeded in penetrating the first line, and held it for a brief period, when they were driven out. A few hours later the Germans made another strong attack over a front of about four miles, their objective being the same—the hillock known as Moulin-sous-Toutvent. This attack was broken up by the French artillery and machine-gun fire.

Throughout the day of July 19, 1917, French and German artillery were active along the whole French front, but beyond inflicting some casualties for which they paid heavily the Germans gained no advantage.

A general assault was launched by the Germans with important forces during the night of July 19, 1917, on the line along the plateau between Craonne and Vauclerc. Over the whole extent of the front there was hand-to-hand fighting, but everywhere the French succeeded in holding their positions. An energetic counterattack made between the Californie and Casemates Plateaus enabled the French to regain a trench line which the Germans had penetrated and held since the previous day. Fighting continued in the Hill 304 region, and in the Champagne, but the Germans failed to make any progress.



During these days of intense fighting on the French front the British had not been marking time, but they had far less to contend against than their valorous allies. The French had to bear the brunt of German fury throughout the week. The whole French line from Verdun to St. Quentin in this period had been subjected to almost continuous attacks. At the cost of enormous losses that had not been exceeded during the war, save at Verdun in the previous year, the Germans had only gained a slight advance on a front of 2,000 feet, at the foot of the slope leading to the Chemin-des-Dames between Vauclerc and Craonne. The French now held all the important heights of the Aisne which Hindenburg had declared were impregnable.

The German High Command had given orders that the French positions on the heights must be captured at all hazards. Throughout the night of July 21, 1917, the high plateaus north of Craonne were shelled by German guns of the heaviest caliber. An attack was made at daybreak from Hurtebise to the east of Craonne. The two plateaus to the north, called the Casemates and Californie positions, are three-cornered in shape, projecting toward the north and joined by a narrow saddle. The approach to this is not so abrupt from the north as that to the plateaus themselves. The French artillery fire broke up the attack between Hurtebise and the Casemates Plateau before it could develop.

Assemblages of German troops north of Ailette were dispersed with heavy losses by the concentrated fire from French batteries. German attacks east of the plateaus led to violent hand-to-hand conflicts in which the Germans fought with great courage, but were unable to make gains. Throughout the day the battle raged, the Germans hurling great masses of men against the French lines, and, thrown back with heavy losses, again and again renewed the attacks. On the Californie Plateau after repeated repulses they succeeded in gaining a foothold, but were only able to hold it for a short time, when the French threw them back in an assault that laid many a German low.

Since the 10th of the month the British had done little but repel counterattacks, but they had won a little useful ground east of Monchy, close to the coast, and around Ypres and Lens theirs and the German batteries were busy day and night. From prisoners captured by the British it was learned that the Germans were suffering from the great wastage of men. Out of one division west of Lens it was stated that between seventy and eighty men had been buried every day for some weeks past. The British losses were also considerable, but their guns did more shooting, and the enemy's casualties were consequently much heavier. The British continued to hold the upper hand in air combats, few German machines being encountered. During July 23-24, 1917, British airmen dropped between four and five tons of bombs on enemy aerodromes, ammunition depots, and railway junctions with good results. North and east of Ypres the British made several raids during the 24th, capturing 114 prisoners, including two officers.

On the French front General Petain, commander in chief of the French armies, found time while the battle was still raging to review the famous division whose four regiments had won the highest honors at Verdun, Nieuport, on the Somme, and in the Champagne. The troops which had been fighting for three years showed outwardly no sign of the terrible ordeals they had undergone, holding themselves proudly erect as they passed the saluting base amid the strains of military music and flying colors. General Petain, who believed in treating his men as if they were his own sons, commended their bravery and thanked them in the name of the Republic for the brilliant example they had set to the other soldiers of France.

The loss of the plateaus north of Craonne continued to rankle in the mind of the German command, and repeated efforts were made to recover these precious positions. In the night of July 25, 1917, a ferocious attack was made on the French lines on a front of about two miles from La Bovelle Farm to a point east of Hurtebise. In the face of a murderous fire from the French artillery that wrought havoc in the advancing masses the Germans pressed on and succeeded in occupying portions of French first-line trenches south of Ailles. Repeated attacks made on Hurtebise Farm broke down under French artillery fire. Attacks on Mont Haut, following an intense bombardment that lasted all night long, failed to make any progress. North of Auberive the French carried out a successful operation during which they penetrated German trenches and continued their advance.

In Flanders in the night of the 25th the town of Nieuport, which had been in ruins since the first year of the war, was bombarded by the Germans with guns of every caliber. The British guns replied with equal violence, so that for miles around the air vibrated day and night and the ground shook with tremors.

East of Monchy the Germans resumed action, 400 attacking with flame throwers the line of British trenches that had already been smashed by artillery fire, and succeeded in occupying some posts of no great importance.

In the Champagne the sorely tried French troops were allowed no respite by the Germans, who would not renounce their hope of regaining the important positions on the heights. In the night of July 26, 1917, no less than five attacks were made by the Germans in the vicinity of the height south and west of Moronvilliers, but all broke down under fire of the French artillery. East of Auberive, several groups of Germans led by an officer tried a surprise attack which led to close fighting and from which hardly one German soldier escaped unwounded. The ground around the French position was strewn with dead, including that of the officer who led the attack.



From the Flemish coast southward past Lens the great gun duel between the British and Germans continued without ceasing. The Germans had brought up vast stores of ammunition and poured shells into Nieuport, Ypres, and Armentieres, and for miles around sprayed the country at large with the hope of smashing hidden British batteries. To this wide sweeping storm of fire the British were replying with far greater violence, sending two shells to the enemy's one, a rivalry of destruction that had not been surpassed on any previous occasion since the war began. Except for occasional raids the infantry remained quiescent under this gunnery. North of Arras and east of Ypres the British raids netted a considerable number of prisoners and machine guns. The fury of the British fire was not without effect on the generally stolid and imperturbable Germans, for at Fontaine-les-Croisilles they ran away without firing a shot when a British raiding party rushed forward to attack.

The three weeks' bombardment in Belgium closed on the morning of July 31, 1917, when British and French troops launched an attack on a gigantic scale along a front of nearly twenty miles from Dixmude on the north to Warneton on the south. The Allies won a notable victory, capturing in the first day of the battle ten towns and over 5,000 prisoners, including ninety-five officers. The attack began a little before 4 o'clock in the morning, just when the first faint light of dawn was breaking, German trenches had been either leveled or were completely wiped out by the preceding bombardment. The shelling increased in violence as the troops of the Allies left their positions and rushed forward to attack. The first and second German lines were carried almost without opposition, but at some points the Germans held up the advance with machine guns from their rear positions. These the British stormed, and lost considerable men in the operation, but they were comforted with the thought that the German losses were much heavier.

As a result of the day's operations the British had advanced their line on a front of over fifteen miles from La Basse Ville, on the river Lys, to Steenstraete on the river Yser.

The French troops on the extreme left and protecting the left flank of the British forces captured the village of Steenstraete, and rushing on penetrated the German defenses to a depth of nearly two miles. Having won all their objectives at an early hour in the day, the French continued to advance, occupying Bixschoote and capturing German positions to the southeast and west of the village on a front of nearly two and a half miles. In the center and on the left British divisions swept the enemy from positions to a depth of two miles, and secured crossings at the river Steenbeek, thus gaining all their objectives. In carrying out this attack British troops captured two powerful defensive systems by assault, and won against fierce opposition the villages of Verlorenhoek, Frezenberg, St. Julien, and Pilken, together with farms that had been transformed into fortresses and other strongholds in neighboring woods.

The victory of the Allies was more remarkable because of unfavorable weather conditions. The day was marked by heavy rain and the sky was full of heavy sodden clouds, so that observation was well nigh impossible for the airmen and kite balloons. Fortunately on the night before the attack the rain held off and the many thousands of British troops who occupied mudholes and shell holes close to the enemy lines had reason to bless the dark since they had a better chance of escaping observation. But this was not always possible, for the German flares and rockets often revealed their position and a shell would pass over them or smash among them, killing some and maiming others. Those who escaped these death-dealing visitors were forced to maintain silence, lest they betray their position. During the night the German aviators were more active than during the day and many times their bombs found a mark among the British soldiers crouching on the ground. It was a terrible ordeal through which these brave fellows had to pass, the forced inaction was maddening, and they were all the more eager to fight when at last the welcome signal came in the early dawn to go forward to attack.

Despite the discouraging weather conditions, which hindered observation, large squadrons of British planes led the advance against the German lines and not only maintained constant contact with the infantry, but flying low carried on a destructive warfare with their machine guns.

There were many air battles fought at a few hundred feet above the ground, but the Germans were decidedly outclassed and had to retire after they had lost six machines.

One British aviator doing patrol duty, and flying at a height of not more than thirty feet, came upon a German aerodrome on which he dropped a bomb with careful precision. As the Germans in the sheds came tumbling out, the aviator turned his machine gun on them, and circling around the field poured such a stream of fire into the kaiser's men that they scattered, leaving a number of dead on the ground.

The Germans having presently recovered, from their astonishment got a machine gun into action and came back to attack the airman, who made a dive, and when not more than twenty feet from the ground silenced their gun with his own. Then he circled the field, firing through the doors of every building he passed on the groups of men within. Leaving this scene the British airman next came upon two German officers, and his machine-gun working steadily put them to flight. A column of several hundred troops encountered after this were dispersed when he swept along the line, leaving a number of dead and wounded on the field. It was now time to return to the British lines for more ammunition and some slight repairs, but the gallant aviator encountered two German war planes that engaged him in battle. One he disabled by a well-directed shot and the other seized the opportunity to hurry from the scene.

On the Aisne front during July 31, 1917, there was violent artillery fighting south of La Royere; the French had won all their objectives and more. The German advanced trenches were filled with dead and the French captured 210 prisoners.

On the same date the Germans after heavily bombarding French lines at Cerny and Hurtebise, attacked positions east of Cerny on a front of 1,500 meters with three regiments. French counterattacks immediately carried out, drove the Germans back, their ranks seriously depleted, and the French were now enabled to advance along the whole front.

The day was calm on both sides of the Meuse, but farther south, in the right center of the French attack, after gaining Hooge village and Sanctuary Wood, their first objectives, they fought their way forward and carried the village of Westhoek, against very obstinate resistance from the enemy. In this neighborhood there was stiff fighting throughout the day, and still continued. The French had penetrated the German defenses to a depth of about a mile. A number of violent counterattacks were repulsed. South of the Zillebeke-Zandvoord road, on the extreme right, French troops at an early hour in the day had succeeded in winning all of their objectives, capturing the villages of La Basse Ville, and Hollebeke. The French claimed to have suffered few casualties in these important operations, and by nightfall of July 31, 1917, over 3,500 German prisoners had been passed behind the lines.

The German Government having industriously circulated reports that the French armies had suffered such a wastage of men that in a short time they would prove a negligible factor in the war, the French War Office announced that there were a million more troops in the fighting zone than were mustered to stem the German flood tide at the Battle of the Marne. It was also declared that the Republic had more men under arms than at any time in her history. Nearly 3,000,000 troops were in France alone, exclusive of the interior and in the colonies.



PART VIII—THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY



CHAPTER LXI

THE INTERIM

The cessation of diplomatic relations between the American and German Governments was an inevitable consequence of the latter's submarine decree abrogating the undertaking it gave in the Sussex case. The world knew it. Germany knew it. Her ambassador at Washington, Count von Bernstorff, knew it best of all, and accepted his dismissal in a fatalistic spirit. The rupture had to come. He had done his best to avert it, and his best had availed nothing.

The long-feared break having become a reality, the American people looked wide-eyed at the unexampled international situation. What now? When two parties enter into a bargain and one breaks it, there is usually a parting of the ways, a personal conflict perhaps, when there is not also a lawsuit. But no court could settle the differences between the United States and Germany. The nation squarely faced the fact that the two countries were officially not on speaking terms; they were on the dangerous ground of open enmity, when the least provocation would be as a spark to a powder magazine. Sparks there were in plenty; but the explosion waited. President Wilson guarded the magazine. He waited an "overt act" before giving up his vigil and letting events take their course.

Germany began her announced ruthless submarine warfare against neutral shipping with caution. Apparently she was loath to precipitate matters by acting in the letter and spirit of the new decree which warned that any neutral vessel found in the new danger zone "perished." On February 3, 1917, when the decree was in operation, one of her submarines encountered an American freighter, the Housatonic, off the Scilly Isles, which came within the proscribed area. It sank her, but first gave warning, permitted the crew to take to the boats, and actually towed the boats ninety miles toward land. A British patrol vessel then appeared; the submarine fired a signal to attract its attention and vanished under water, leaving the patrol vessel to rescue the Housatonic's crew. According to the new order given the submarines the Housatonic ought to have been sunk without warning.

This unwonted chivalry looked promising; but it was deemed to be merely an act of grace extended to neutral vessels on the high seas which had left their home ports before the date (February 1, 1917) when the new policy of ruthlessness went into effect. It was not repeated.

No such shrift was accorded British vessels, whether Americans were on board them or not. About the same time the merchantman Eavestone was sunk by a submarine, which also shelled the crew as they took to the boats. The captain and three seamen—one an American—were killed by the gunfire. This action was debated as an "overt act," but apparently the Administration did not regard isolated fatalities of this character as providing ground for a casus belli.

What came nearer to a flagrant violation of the Sussex agreement was the destruction by submarine torpedoes of the Anchor passenger liner California without warning off the Irish coast with 230 persons on board. The vessel sailed from New York for Glasgow on January 28, 1917, and its crew and passengers included a sprinkling of Americans. There were no American casualties; but attacks on passenger liners without warning, regardless of the menace to American life, formed the crux of the various crises between the United States and Germany, and the sinking of the California, as an "overt act," therefore brought the breaking point nearer and nearer. The loss of life was forty-one, thirteen passengers and twenty-eight of the crew being drowned. The vessel sank in nine minutes and the submarine made no effort to save the lives of its victims.

The loss of two British steamers, the Japanese Prince and the Mantola, sunk without warning, added to the growing indictment against Germany in the consequent jeopardizing of American lives. There were thirty American cattlemen on board the Japanese Prince. With the remainder of the crew they took to the boats, and after drifting about for several hours were saved by a passing ship. An American doctor on board the Mantola was among the latter's survivors.

The next attack on American shipping was the sinking of the Lyman M. Law, a sailing vessel loaded with lumber from Maine to Italy, by a submarine off the coast of Sardinia in the Mediterranean. The crew, seven of whom were American, were saved. There was no warning; the crew were ordered to debark, a bomb was placed on board, and the vessel was blown up and sank in flames.

The destruction of the Cunard liner Laconia, without warning, followed. Three American passengers were lost, two of them women, mother and daughter, who died from exposure in one of the boats. The vessel was torpedoed in the Irish Sea at 10.30 p. m. on February 25, 1917, and it was not until 4 o'clock the next morning that the survivors, scantily clad, were rescued in a heavy sea.

All these outrages were readily chargeable as overt acts, any single one of which could have constituted a cause for war, if the Administration was looking for one. But Germany's offenses, viewed singly, were passed over; it was their cumulative force that was providing the momentum to hostilities.

Two American freighters, the Orleans and the Rochester, left New York on February 9, 1917, without guns or contraband, bound for Bordeaux, France, and were the first craft to leave an American port after Germany issued her terrifying order condemning all neutral vessels found in the new danger zone.

Meantime the barometer at Washington was ominous. The California sinking, then the Laconia, proved how slender was the thread that held the sword of Damocles over the heads of the American people. Tension increased. "We are hoping for the best and preparing for the worst," came one official view early in the crisis. The President became detached and uncommunicative.

Germany indirectly sought to avert the consequences of her conduct. A week after the rupture in diplomatic relations Dr. Paul Ritter, the Swiss Minister, to whom she had delegated the charge of her interests in the United States, approached the State Department with an informal proposal to reopen negotiations. Secretary Lansing required him to put his request in writing, and the following memorandum was thereupon presented by Dr. Ritter on February 11, 1917:

"The Swiss Government has been requested by the German Government to say that the latter is now, as before, willing to negotiate, formally or informally, with the United States, provided that the commercial blockade against England will not be broken thereby."

Secretary Lansing's answer, made the next day, was short and to the point. He notified Dr. Ritter, under instructions from the President, that "the Government of the United States would gladly discuss with the German Government any questions it might propose for discussion were it to withdraw its proclamation of the 31st of January [1917], in which, suddenly and without previous intimation of any kind, it canceled the assurances which it had given this Government on the 4th of May last [1916], but that it does not feel that it can enter into any discussion with the German Government concerning the policy of submarine warfare against neutrals which it is now pursuing unless and until the German Government renews its assurances of the 4th of May and acts upon the assurance."

No further interchanges took place on the subject. The answer clarified the situation and disposed of doubts caused by the veil the President had thrown about the workings of his mind. It told the country that its Executive was not wavering and would brook no compromise.

Little hope prevailed in Berlin that war with the United States could be avoided, since the bait offered with a view to formulating a modus vivendi for reconciling the divergent attitudes of the two governments had failed. It was said that behind Dr. Ritter's overtures was a proposal that American vessels would be spared in order to avoid actual war if the United States assented to the continuance of the extended blockade against England. This implied that all other vessels, neutral or belligerent, were marked for destruction. However that might be, Berlin, finding its approaches repulsed, boldly denied that the German Government had been a party to initiating any overtures at all. No recession of the submarine program was thought of or proposed; no change of policy was possible In fact, this denial brought with it tidings that the periods of grace Germany granted to neutral ships entering the prohibited zones had expired and that all immunity from attack and destruction had therefore ceased. Then it developed that Dr. Ritter's overtures had been traced to pacific elements in the United States, represented by William J. Bryan, who was said to have been in league with the ex-ambassador, Count von Bernstorff, and the Washington correspondent of a Cologne newspaper, in a plan to avert hostilities. Part of this propaganda was the transmission of dispatches from Washington to the German press stating that the President's message to Congress must not be construed literally, and that there was no desire for war with Germany. The purpose of these dispatches was to prevail on Germany to abate her submarine warfare by way of convincing the United States that her new policy was not so ruthless as had been described. The pacifists knew very well that the President had no intention of yielding to half measures, and that the only course Germany could take to obtain a resumption of negotiations was the absolute withdrawal of her order revoking the Sussex pledge. The Administration resented the pacifists' activities as an attempt to undermine the uncompromising position it had taken. Their dealings with a foreign government were actually unlawful; but no action was taken.

A subsequent announcement from Berlin stated that Dr. Ritter (inspired by American pacifists) had telegraphed the German Government offering to mediate, whereupon he was told that Germany was agreeable on the terms named in the interchanges Dr. Ritter had with the State Department. As to a belief which had arisen from Dr. Ritter's action that the marine barrier maintained against Great Britain by submarines and mines had been or would be weakened out of regard for the United States or for other reasons, official Berlin (February 14, 1917) had this to say:

"Regard for neutrals prompts the clearest declaration that unrestricted war against all sea traffic in the announced barred zones is now in full effect and will under no circumstances be restricted."

The United States had spoken: "Withdraw your new submarine decree before making any proposal," it had demanded of Berlin. Germany had spoken: "Our course cannot be changed."

The situation in Washington drifted along without any definite program of future action being disclosed; but the President was not idle. He decided—though he held the power himself—to ask Congress for authority to protect American shipping on the high seas by providing merchantmen with naval guns and gunners. There was a freight congestion in Atlantic ports, due to the reluctance of American shipowners to sail their vessels without defensive armament. The President's decision was a step nearer war, for armed American vessels, on encountering German submarines, would be bound to cause hostilities, and war would be a reality. Berlin took this view. If the United States armed its merchant ships, German opinion was that the considerate submarines would be unable to save passengers and crews of the vessels they sank. Were the vessels unarmed the submarines could perform this kindly service. This sardonic hint was construed as an official warning from Germany that the arming of American vessels meant war. The Administration, however, was no longer concerned with Germany's viewpoint. It realized that so long as it permitted American ships to be held in port in fear of attack by submarines if they ventured out, its inaction would in effect be viewed as acquiescing in the German policy. Such a state of affairs, it was decided, could not be allowed to continue indefinitely.



CHAPTER LXII

BERLIN'S TACTICS

Before the armed neutrality stage of the prewar period was reached certain events transpired in Berlin which call for inclusion in the record.

Immediately upon the rupture of diplomatic relations the State Department notified Ambassador Gerard, who was requested to ask for his passports. About the same time the German Government acceded to a demand made by Secretary Lansing for the release of a number of Americans captured from ships sunk by a German raider in the South Atlantic and taken to a German port on board one of them, the British steamer Yarrowdale. Germany had no right to hold these men as prisoners at all, since they were neutrals. Yet there was an attempt to interject their release into the international crisis as an olive branch and a concession to American feeling. The two issues were distinct; but Germany, by her subsequent action, managed to link them together.

Ambassador Gerard requested his passports on February 5, 1917, while the release of the Yarrowdale prisoners was pending. Meantime dispatches which came to Berlin from Washington via London were blamed for misleading the German Government into thinking that the United States was detaining Count von Bernstorff, and had seized the German ships, with their crews, lying in American ports. Until it received assurances regarding the "fate" of the ex-ambassador and learned what treatment was to be meted out to the "captured" crews of the German vessels, the kaiser's government detained Ambassador Gerard, his staff, a number of Americans, including newspaper correspondents, as well as the Yarrowdale men. It practically held all Americans in Germany as prisoners for a week.

In view of the readiness of the German Government to seize upon the flimsiest excuses for its manifold disgraceful deeds, permissible doubts arose as to whether it was willingly or willfully misled by the dispatches. Every courtesy was shown to the departing German Ambassador by the Washington Government; safe conduct across the ocean was obtained for him from Great Britain; and he publicly expressed his acknowledgments. As to the German vessels, there were no seizures, and the only restraints imposed on the crews were those required by the immigration laws. Whatever the motive, the detention of Ambassador Gerard was so wanton a violation of law and usage as to constitute in itself an act of war.

While Ambassador Gerard was held incommunicado in Berlin, his mail intercepted, his telephone cut off, and telegraphic facilities denied him, the German Government actually sought to parley with him by way of revising an old treaty to apply to existing conditions. Mr. Gerard, having ceased to hold ambassadorial powers after the breaking of relations, could not enter into any such negotiations; but then the German Government had never been concerned with legalities. It blandly asked him to sign a protocol, the main purpose of which was to protect Germans and their interests in the United States in the event of war.

The proposed protocol, besides containing a formal reratification of the American-Prussian treaties of 1799 and 1828 regarding mutual treatment of nationals caught in either belligerent country in case of war, provided for some remarkable additions as a "special arrangement" should war be declared.

Germans in the United States and Americans in Germany were to be entitled to conduct their businesses and continue their domicile unmolested, but could be excluded from fortified places and other military areas. Or if they chose, they were free to leave, with their personal property, except such as was contraband. If they remained they were to enjoy the exercise of their private rights in common with neutral residents. They were not to be transferred to concentration camps nor their property sequestered except under conditions applying to neutral property. Patent rights of the respective nationals in either country were not to be declared void nor be transferred to others. No contracts between Germans and Americans were to be canceled or suspended, nor were citizens of either country to be impeded in fulfilling their obligations arising thereunder. Finally Germany required that enemy merchant ships in either country should not be forced to leave port unless allowed a binding safe conduct by all the enemy sea powers.

In short, Germany asked that in the event of war her nationals and her ships and commercial interests in the United States be regarded as on a neutral footing and exempt from all military law. They were to be as free and unrestricted as in peace time.

Mr. Gerard refused to sign the protocol after he had ceased to exercise ambassadorial functions. Thereupon Count Montgelas, chief of the American department of the Foreign Office, hinted that his refusal to sign it might affect the status of Americans in Germany and their privilege of departure. The reference was to American press correspondents in Berlin, whose fate was apparently thought to weigh with American public opinion. This threat to detain newspaper representatives as supposedly important pieces on the diplomatic chessboard before war was declared brought a firm refusal from Mr. Gerard to yield to such pressure. He also expressed doubt whether the newspaper representatives could be utilized to urge acceptance of the protocol under pain of detention. Thenceforth nothing further was heard of the protocol. Germany was undoubtedly exercising duress in requiring Mr. Gerard to sign it, since his passports were withheld and a needless guard had been placed round the American Embassy.

It appeared that the protocol had also been submitted to the State Department by the Swiss Minister in Washington. Secretary Lansing finally disposed of it. In a communication to Dr. Ritter he said the United States Government refused to modernize and extend the treaties as Germany proposed, and indicated that the Government held the treaties null and void since Germany herself had grossly violated her obligations under them. The treaty of 1828, for example, contained this clause governing freedom of maritime commerce of either of the contracting parties when the other was at war:

"The free intercourse and commerce of the subjects or citizens of the party remaining neuter with the belligerent powers shall not be interrupted.

"On the contrary, in that case, as in full peace, the vessels of the neutral party may navigate freely to and from the ports and on the coasts of the belligerent parties, free vessels making free goods, insomuch that all things shall be adjudged free which shall be on board any vessel belonging to the neutral party, although such things belong to an enemy of the other.

"And the same freedom shall be extended to persons who shall be on board a free vessel, although they should be enemies to the other party, unless they be soldiers in actual service of such an enemy."

Secretary Lansing pointed out another clause of equal import in the treaty of 1799, providing:

"All persons belonging to any vessels of war, public or private, who shall molest or insult in any manner whatever the people, vessel, or effects of the other party, shall be responsible in their persons and property for damages and interests, sufficient security for which shall be given by all commanders of private armed vessels before they are commissioned."

Germany was reminded of her violations of these stipulations in strong terms. Said Secretary Lansing:

"Disregarding these obligations, the German Government has proclaimed certain zones of the high seas in which it declared without reservation that all ships, including those of neutrals, will be sunk, and in those zones German submarines have in fact, in accordance with this declaration, ruthlessly sunk merchant vessels and jeopardized or destroyed the lives of American citizens on board.

"Moreover, since the severance of relations between the United States and Germany certain American citizens in Germany have been prevented from removing from the country. While this is not a violation of the terms of the treaties mentioned, it is a disregard of the reciprocal liberty of intercourse between the two countries in times of peace and cannot be taken otherwise than as an indication of the purpose on the part of the German Government to disregard, in the event of war, the similar liberty of action provided for in Article 23 of the treaty of 1799—the very article which it is now proposed to interpret and supplement almost wholly in the interests of the large number of German subjects residing in the United States and enjoying in their persons or property the protection of the United States Government."

In addition to declining to enter into the special protocol Germany proposed, Secretary Lansing significantly added:

"The Government is seriously considering whether or not the treaty of 1828 and the revised articles of the treaties of 1785 and 1799 have not been in effect abrogated by the German Government's flagrant violations of their provisions, for it would be manifestly unjust and inequitable to require one party to an agreement to observe its stipulations and to permit the other party to disregard them.

"It would appear that the mutuality of the undertaking has been destroyed by the conduct of the German authorities."

The meaning of this passage was that as Germany was deemed to have abrogated the treaties by sinking American ships, the German vessels immured in American harbors would be under no treaty protection should war be declared, and would be immediately seized by the American Government. Germany had thus destroyed the protection they would have received in case of war.

The intimidation exercised on Ambassador Gerard to obtain his signature to the protocol and its submission by Dr. Ritter to Secretary Lansing showed that Germany was nervously concerned about safeguarding her interests in the United States and feared for the safety of her nationals in the pending crisis. Ample assurances presently came to Berlin, however, that, during the diplomatic break at any rate, the American Government would not resort to Teutonic methods. Count von Bernstorff was safe; no ships had been seized; no crews arrested; no other German persons or interests molested. Thereupon Ambassador Gerard and an entourage of some 120 Americans received their passports and left the German capital on February 10, 1917, for the United States via Switzerland and Spain.

Germany was less ready to release the Americans known as the Yarrowdale prisoners. Her Government still appeared to fear that the crews of German warships in American ports were in danger, and evidently wanted hostages at hand lest any trouble befell them at the hands of the American military authorities. Secretary Lansing demanded their release on February 3, 1917, when relations were broken. Germany assented, then withdrew her assent. A second request for their freedom and for an explanation of their continued detention was made on February 13, 1917. At this date the men had been held as prisoners of war for forty-four days contrary to international law. After being captured from Allied vessels sunk by the German raider, they were taken before a prize court at Swinemunde, when their status was determined. Neutral merchant seamen, according to Germany, must be held as prisoners of war because they had served and taken pay on armed enemy vessels. Germany disclosed for the first time that she was treating armed merchantmen as ships of war and regarded neutral seamen found on such vessels as combatants. The German raider had captured altogether 103 subjects of neutral states. They were not imprisoned because they had committed hostile acts, which would have justified their detention. They were penalized for being on enemy vessels. The American Government insisted that Germany had no right to hold any Americans as war prisoners unless they committed hostile acts. Germany had no answer to make to that contention. But she did not free them. "They will be released just as soon as we learn of the fate of the German crews in American ports," said Herr Zimmermann, Foreign Secretary.



Germany had already been assured that the crews were in no danger. The conviction grew that she meant to detain the Yarrowdale seamen as hostages pending a determination of the crisis as to peace or war. The Administration had been inclined to subordinate all collateral issues between the two countries to the major and vital one created by the submarine peril; but the plight of these seamen caused their case to become one of the chief factors in the crisis. Germany seemed to conclude that their continued detention, in view of the indignation roused in Washington by such a wanton violation of international law, to say nothing of the open insult hurled at the dignity and good faith of the United States, would only precipitate war. On February 16, 1917, came a report that the men had been released. This proved to be a false alarm. On February 26, 1917, Berlin notified that their release, although ordered "some time ago," had been deferred because an infectious disease had been discovered in their concentration camp at Brandenburg. They were consequently placed in quarantine "in the interest of neutral countries." On March 2, 1917, Dr. Ritter informed Secretary Lansing that the transfer of the American sailors to the frontier had been arranged but delayed until the quarantine ended. On March 8, 1917, they were finally released from quarantine and sent to the Swiss frontier. Members of other neutral crews were sent home through various frontier towns. All were said to have been penniless and in rags. Apart from the necessary quarantine (a Spanish doctor found typhus in the camp), the record stands as an example of Germany's gift for unscrupulous temporizing and for using procrastination as a club to hold the United States at bay when on the brink of war.

The Reichstag met shortly after Germany had compulsorily disposed of her connections with the United States. An expected address by the kaiser's Chancellor, Dr. von Bethmann-Hollweg, had been deferred until February 27, 1917, when a tardy official recognition was made of the American action.

The most deliberate official notice of the course the United States would take was served on the German Government in the President's ultimatum arising out of the torpedoing of the Sussex early in 1916. If Germany continued her ruthless sea warfare, the President warned her, "the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether." Now the time had come for the President to go even beyond that step. The day before the Reichstag listened to the Chancellor's complaint the voice of the American President was again heard in the Capitol at Washington.



CHAPTER LXIII

ARMED NEUTRALITY

President Wilson addressed Congress in joint session, February 26, 1917, asking authority to use the armed forces of the United States to protect American rights on the high seas. He desired to establish a state of "armed neutrality." This was not a request for a declaration of war, nor was it an act of war. It was to prepare the United States to resist what might be warlike acts by Germany.

Reviewing the maritime conditions caused by Germany's submarine order of January 31, 1917, which produced the diplomatic rupture, the President disclosed an unexpected view—that Germany's misdeeds in carrying out her new decree had not, in his opinion, so far provided the "overt act" for which the United States was waiting.

"Our own commerce has suffered, is suffering," he said, "rather in apprehension than in fact, rather because so many of our ships are timidly keeping to their home ports, than because American ships have been sunk....

"In sum, therefore, the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the actual conduct of the German submarine warfare against commerce and its effects upon our own ships and people is substantially the same that it was when I addressed you on February 3, except for the tying up of our shipping in our own ports because of the unwillingness of our shipowners to risk their vessels at sea without insurance or adequate protection, and the very serious congestion of our commerce, which has eventuated, a congestion which is growing rapidly more and more serious every day.

"This in itself might presently accomplish, in effect, what the new German submarine orders were meant to accomplish, so far as we are concerned. We can only say, therefore, that the overt act which I have ventured to hope the German commanders would in fact avoid has not occurred."

But he felt that American immunity thus far had been more a matter of happy accident than due to any consideration of German submarine commanders. Nevertheless, he pointed out, it would be foolish to deny that the situation was fraught with the gravest possibilities and dangers. Hence he sought from the Congress "full and immediate assurance of the authority which I may need at any moment to exercise."

"No doubt," he proceeded, "I already possess that authority without special warrant of law, by the plain implication of my constitutional duties and powers, but I prefer in the present circumstances not to act upon general implication. I wish to feel that the authority and the power of the Congress are behind me in whatever it may become necessary for me to do. We are jointly the servants of the people and must act together and in their spirit, so far as we can divine and interpret it....

"I am not now proposing or contemplating war or any steps that need lead to it. I merely request that you will accord me by your own vote and definite bestowal the means and the authority to safeguard in practice the right of a great people who are at peace and who are desirous of exercising none but the rights of peace to follow the pursuit of peace in quietness and good will—rights recognized time out of mind by all the civilized nations of the world.

"I believe that the people will be willing to trust me to act with restraint, with prudence, and in the true spirit of amity and good faith that they have themselves displayed throughout these trying months, and it is in that belief that I request that you will authorize me to supply our merchant ships with defensive arms should that become necessary, and with the means of using them, and to employ any other instrumentalities or methods that may be necessary and adequate to protect our ships and our people in their legitimate and peaceful pursuits on the seas."

Even before the President addressed Congress the "overt act" had been committed by Germany. News of the sinking of the Laconia, already mentioned, was published synchronously with the delivery of his message and subjected to correction his allusion to the noncommittal of any overt act by German submarines. The President, in fact, decided later that the destruction of the Cunarder without warning and at night, in rough seas, with the loss of American lives, constituted a "clear-cut" violation of the pledge the German Government gave to the United States after the Lusitania and Sussex sinkings. But it was felt that the next step in meeting the situation now rested with Congress.

The Senate and House immediately set about framing bills conforming, as far as the President's opponents permitted, to his request. There was no time to be lost. Congress expired on March 4, 1917, by constitutional limitation and the President had delayed submitting his message until the last moment, so that Congress had only eight days to debate and agree to a measure that excited the pacifists' bitter animosity in both Houses, as well as the opposition of other legislators who feared that the authority the President sought would encroach on Congress's war-making prerogative.

In the House of Representatives the opposition dwindled to negligible proportions. Public sentiment had been stirred by the sinking of the Laconia and by certain revelations the Administration published disclosing German overtures to Mexico in the event of war, the character of which will be chronicled later. Sensitive to the public pulse, the House was eager to receive the Armed-Ship Bill when it was reported on February 28, 1917, by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which had occupied a couple of days in shaping it. A stirring debate on the bill took place the next day (March 1) under cloture rule, and before the House adjourned that night it had passed the measure by a substantial vote of 403 to 13. The bill was at once sent to the Senate, and was substituted for the Senate Committee's bill, whose provisions conferred larger powers on the President. Expecting the Senate to pass its own bill as a substitute, it was the intention of the House leaders to accept the Senate's measure when it came to them for passage. The measure, however, never passed the Senate. Through the wide latitude allowed for unlimited debate a handful of Senators opposed to any action against Germany succeeded in effectually blocking the bill. The Senate sat late into the night of February 28, 1917, and took up the Armed-Ship Bill the next day. Senator La Follette, who led the successful filibuster against the bill, objected to its consideration, and, under the rule of unanimous consent, would only allow the bill to proceed on condition that no attempt was made to pass it before the next day. A precious day was lost, which sealed the fate of the measure. The bill came before the Senate for continuous debate on March 2, 1917, when it got into a parliamentary tangle. Debate was resumed on Saturday, March 3, 1917. Only a day and a half of the session now remained. Senator Stone who, though in charge of the bill, was opposed to it, found his position untenable and surrendered its conduct to Senator Hitchcock. This course enabled him to join the opponents of the bill openly by contending for an amendment excluding munition ships from armed protection—a revival of the arms embargo he had urged before. But the main obstruction to the bill came from a group of Western senators, who balked every effort for limiting debate or setting a time for a vote. As midnight neared the Administration's supporters saw that its chances of passing before Congress expired at noon the next day, Sunday, March 4, 1917, were of the slightest, and, anxious that the country should know where they stood, these senators, to the number of seventy-five, signed a manifesto reading as follows:

"The undersigned, United States senators, favor the passage of Senate bill 8322, to authorize the President of the United States to arm American merchant vessels.

"A similar bill already has passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 403 to 13.

"Under the rules of the Senate, allowing unlimited debate, it now appears to be impossible to obtain a vote prior to noon March 4, 1917, when the session of Congress expires.

"We desire the statement entered in the record to establish the fact that the Senate favors the legislation and would pass it if a vote could be obtained."

The Senate continued sitting until the stroke of twelve noon on March 4, 1917. The President was in the Capitol receiving reports of the course of his opponents' tactics. A vote not having been reached, the Armed-Ship Bill went down to defeat, having been talked to death, and the Senate automatically adjourned with the expiration of the last session of the Sixty-fourth Congress. The bill was assured of passage, had a vote been permitted, by 75 to 12. The twelve obstructionists were Senators La Follette of Wisconsin, Norris of Nebraska, Cummins of Iowa, Stone of Missouri, Gronna of North Dakota, Kirby of Arkansas, Vardaman of Mississippi, O'Gorman of New York, Works of California, Jones of Washington, Clapp of Minnesota, Lane of Oregon—seven Republicans and five Democrats.

The situation produced an indignant protest from the President, who, in a public statement, described the termination of the session by constitutional limitation as disclosing "a situation unparalleled in the history of the country, perhaps unparalleled in the history of any modern government. In the immediate presence of a crisis fraught with more subtle and far-reaching possibilities of national danger than any other the Government has known within the whole history of its international relations, the Congress has been unable to act either to safeguard the country or to vindicate the elementary rights of its citizens."

"The Senate," he proceeded, "has no rules by which debate can be limited or brought to an end, no rules by which dilatory tactics of any kind can be prevented. A single member can stand in the way of action, if he have but the physical endurance. The result in this case is a complete paralysis alike of the legislative and of the executive branches of the Government.

"Although, as a matter of fact, the nation and the representatives of the nation stand back of the Executive with unprecedented unanimity and spirit, the impression made abroad will, of course, be that it is not so and that other governments may act as they please without fear that this Government can do anything at all. We cannot explain. The explanation is incredible. The Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.

"The remedy? There is but one remedy. The only remedy is that the rules of the Senate shall be so altered that it can act. The country can be relied upon to draw the moral. I believe that the Senate can be relied on to supply the means of action and save the country from disaster."

The new Senate of the Sixty-fifth Congress met in extraordinary session at noon on March 6, 1917, when both parties took steps to frame a revision of the rules for preventing filibustering. Both caucuses agreed upon a cloture rule empowering the Senate to bring the debate on any measure to an end by a two-thirds vote, limiting speeches to one hour each, but sixteen senators must first make the request in the form of a signed motion presented two days previously. After several hours' discussion this rule passed the Senate on March 8, 1917. Thus the right to unlimited debate, which had been regarded as the most characteristic prerogative of senators, was at last restrained after enjoying a freedom of nearly one hundred and ten years.

The recalcitrant senators who prevented the passage of the Armed-Ship Bill were the subject of bitter criticism from the press and public throughout the country, which echoed, but in much stronger terms, the President's denunciation of them. There was none to do them reverence in the United States. The only meed of praise they received came from Germany. The essence of editorial opinion in that country regarding their action, according to a Berlin message, was that "so long as there are men in the American Congress who boldly refuse to have their country involved in the European slaughter merely for the sake of gratifying Wilson's vainglorious ambition, there is hope that the common sense of the American people will assert itself and that they will not permit the appalling insanity to spread to the new world that holds the old world in a merciless grip."

The German press, like the senators whom it eulogized, was mistaken in supposing that the President had been thwarted by the failure of the Armed-Ship Bill. Certainly he remained in doubt as to his next course. He had told Congress that he believed he had the power to arm merchant ships without its authority, but did not care to act on general implication. Now he was faced with the duty of ascertaining definitely where his freedom of action lay, since Congress had impeded, instead of facilitating, his conduct of the crisis with Germany. An old act, passed in 1819, governing piracy at sea, had been unearthed, and at first sight its terms were read as preventing the President from arming merchant ships. The law advisers of the Government, Secretary Lansing and Attorney General Gregory, examined this act and decided that it was obsolete. They were of opinion that it did not apply to the existing situation. The statute forbade American merchantmen from defending themselves against the commissioned vessels of a nation with which the United States was at "amity"; but they could resist by force any attacks made on them by any other armed vessels. In short, it legalized resistance to pirates. The word "amity" pre-supposed friendly diplomatic relations as well as a normal condition of traffic and commerce on the high seas in its application to the armed vessels of other nations. The provision forbidding conflict with them by American traders was intended primarily to prevent private citizens from embarrassing the Government's foreign relations. Now it was held that Germany's denial to Americans of the rights of the high seas was inconsistent with true amity, and caused her war vessels to lose, so far as the United States was concerned, their right to immunity from attack, both under international law and under this municipal act, which was viewed as superseded and void in its application to German war craft.

This decision disposed of an obstacle which had placed the President in a dilemma. It was true he could go to Congress again; but immediate action was imperative. Armed neutrality, under the President's powers as commander in chief of the army and navy, was thereupon determined. Every merchant ship which so desired would be provided with guns and naval gunners to operate them. Foreign governments were notified of this action in an executive memorandum which read:

"In view of the announcement of the Imperial German Government on January 81, 1917, that all ships, those of neutrals included, met within certain zones of the high seas, would be sunk without any precaution taken for the safety of the persons on board, and without the exercise of visit and search, the Government of the United States has determined to place upon all American merchant vessels sailing through the barred areas an armed guard for the protection of the vessels and the lives of the persons on board."

The President meantime was also confronted with the necessity of calling the new Congress into extra session, not so much to gain its assent to armed neutrality (since he had determined to act without it), but as a war expedient to support the measures projected against Germany. Owing to the Senate filibuster the previous Congress had been unable to pass appropriations exceeding $500,000,000, more than half of which was needed for the army. The new Congress was accordingly convened, to meet on April 16, 1917.



CHAPTER LXIV

GERMANY'S BID TO MEXICO

While Congress was in the midst of its consideration of the Armed-Ship Bill, the Administration amazed the country by revealing through the press that Germany had made overtures to Mexico for an alliance with that country in the event of war with the United States, and also sought to involve Japan.

This disclosure was due to American secret service agents, who had intercepted a communication addressed by Herr Zimmermann, the German Foreign Secretary, to Herr von Eckhardt, the German Minister at Mexico City, reading as follows:

"BERLIN, January 19, 1917.

"On the 1st of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

"If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement.

"You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States, and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan. At the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan.

"Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months.

"ZIMMERMAN."

The Administration was in possession of this document, and achieved a dramatic coup in exposing its contents just as important war legislation was pending in Congress. The immediate effect of the revelation was that the Armed-Ship Bill passed the House of Representatives by the overwhelming majority recorded in the previous chapter. The Senate was no less astonished; but its attitude was one of incredulity and produced a demand to the State Department vouching for the document's authenticity and demanding other information. Secretary Lansing assured it that the letter was bona fide, but declined to say more.

The letter was transmitted to Von Eckhardt through Count von Bernstorff, then German Ambassador at Washington, and now homeward bound to Germany under a safe conduct obtained from his enemies by the country against which he was plotting war. It came into the President's hands a few days before it was published on March 1, 1917, and provided a telling comment on Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg's declaration that the United States had placed an interpretation on the new submarine decree "never intended by Germany" and that Germany had promoted and honored friendly relations with the United States "as an heirloom from Frederick the Great." Its disclosure was viewed as a sufficing answer to the German Chancellor's plaint that the United States had "brusquely" broken off relations without giving "authentic" reasons for its action.

The bearings of the proposal to Mexico were admirably stated by the Associated Press as follows:

"The document supplies the missing link to many separate chains of circumstances which, until now, have seemed to lead to no definite point. It sheds new light upon the frequently reported but indefinable movements of the Mexican Government to couple its situation with the friction between the United States and Japan.

"It adds another chapter to the celebrated report of Jules Cambon, French Ambassador in Berlin before the war, for Germany's world-wide plans for stirring up strife on every continent where they might aid her in the struggle for world domination which she dreamed was close at hand.

"It adds a climax to the operations of Count von Bernstorff and the German Embassy in this country, which have been colored with passport frauds, charges of dynamite plots, and intrigue, the full extent of which never has been published.

"It gives new credence to persistent reports of submarine bases on Mexican territory in the Gulf of Mexico. It takes cognizance of a fact long recognized by American army chiefs, that if Japan ever undertook to invade the United States it probably would be through Mexico, over the border and into the Mississippi Valley to split the country in two.

"It recalls that Count von Bernstorff, when his passports were handed to him, was very reluctant to return to Germany, but expressed a preference for an asylum in Cuba. It gives a new explanation to the repeated arrests on the border of men charged by American military authorities with being German intelligence agents.

"Last of all, it seems to show a connection with General Carranza's recent proposal to neutrals that exports of food and munitions to the Entente Allies be cut off, and an intimation that he might stop the supply of oil, so vital to the British navy, which is exported from the Tampico fields."

A series of repudiations followed. The Mexican Government, through various officials except President-elect Carranza himself, denied all knowledge of Germany's proposal. The German Minister at Mexico City protested that he had never received any instructions from Secretary Zimmermann, which appeared to be the case, since they were intercepted. From Tokyo came the assurance of Viscount Motono, Japanese Foreign Minister, that Japan had received no proposal from either Germany or Mexico for an alliance against the United States. He scouted the idea as ridiculous, since it was based on the "outrageous presumption that Japan would abandon her allies." Secretary Lansing did not believe Japan had any knowledge of Germany's overtures to Mexico, nor that she would consider approaches made by any enemy, and was likewise confident that Mexico would not be a party to any agreement which affected her relations with the United States.

The Berlin Government impenitently admitted the transmission of the Eckhardt letter and justified the alliance with Mexico it proposed. The Budget Committee of the Reichstag, unequivocally and by a unanimous vote, indorsed the initiation of the ill-starred project as being within the legitimate scope of military precautions. Addressing the Reichstag, Herr Zimmermann thus defended his action:

"We were looking out for all of us, in the event of there being the prospect of war with America. It was a natural and justified precaution. I am not sorry that, through its publication in America, it also became known in Japan.

"For the dispatch of these instructions a secure way was chosen which at present is at Germany's disposal. How the Americans came into possession of the text which went to America in special secret code we do not know. That these instructions should have fallen into American hands is a misfortune, but that does not alter the fact that the step was necessary for our patriotic interests.

"Least of all are they in America justified in being excited about our action. It would be erroneous to suppose that the step made a particularly deep impression abroad. It is regarded as what it is—justifiable defensive action in the event of war."

The Mexican Government, despite its denials, remained under the suspicion that it had secret dealings with Germany. Toward the close of 1916 circumstantial rumors were afloat that German sea raiders, who were then roaming the South Atlantic, had a base somewhere on the coast of Mexico. The Allied Powers were persuaded that if this was true the raiders could not obtain supplies from such a source without the knowledge or connivance of the Mexican authorities. The British charge at Mexico City thereupon presented a note to the Carranza Government stating that if it was discovered that Mexican neutrality had thus been violated, the Allies would take "drastic measures" to end the situation. The retort of the Mexican Foreign Minister, Senor Aquilar, almost insolent in tone, was to the effect that it was the business of the Allies to keep German submarines out of western waters, and that if they were not kept out Mexico would adopt whatever course the circumstances might dictate.

An allusion has previously been made to a peace proposal submitted by General Carranza. Its character was such as to point to the presence of German influences in Mexico, and the impression was created that it was made solely to embarrass the United States. Shortly after the American severance of relations with Germany, General Carranza circulated an identical note to the neutral powers, including the United States, asking them to join Mexico in an international agreement to prohibit the exportation of munitions and foodstuffs to the belligerents in Europe. Such an embargo, General Carranza piously pointed out in florid terms, would compel peace. The inference was plain. Only the Central Powers would benefit by such a step. If the note was not directly inspired by German intrigue it certainly suggested to the other neutrals a practical union against the Entente Allies. The proposal was contrary to international law and to the principles of neutrality as laid down by the United States to the German and Austro-Hungarian Governments.