The German government replied that it was prepared to agree to the proposal concerning floating mines, but would not renounce the use of anchored mines for purposes of offense. It practically. accepted the provision concerning submarines, but insisted that the merchant ves sels attacked must be unarmed and not resist by force. The regulation of importation of food seemed to be in general acceptable, but Germany insisted that enetny governments must allow also the admission of the raw ma terials on the list of the Declaration of Lon don.
That the American compromise was en tirely unacceptable to Great Britain was made clear by- an announcement which she issued jointly with France, concerning the German war zone decree, and the retaliatory measures decided upon. "The German declaration sub stitutes indiscriminate destruction for regu lated captures. Germany has adopted this method against the peaceful trader and the non-combatant, with the avowed object of pre venting commodities of all kinds, including food for the civilian population, from reaching or leaving the British Isles or northern France. Her opponents are, therefore, driven to frame retaliatory measures in order in their turn to prevent commodities of any kind from reach ing or leaving Germany. These measures will, however, be enforced by the British and French governments without risk to neutral ships or neutral non-combatant lives, and in strict ob servation of the dictates of humanity. The British and French governments will, there fore, hold themselves free to detain and take into port ships carrying goods of presumed enemy destination, ownership or origin. It is not intended to confiscate such ve.ssel,s or cargoes unless they would otherwise be liable to con fiscation. Vessels with cargoes which sailed before this date will not be affected.* The word blockade was purposely omitted from the note, but tbe measures announced were plainly a blockade of the German coast.
This measure, which threatened to end all direct commerce between Germany and over seas countries, caused great dissatisfaction in the United States. On 5 March Secretary Bryan addressed a note to Great Britain and France asking how the embargo on German trade was to be enforced. In proposing to take into custody all ships trading with Germany, they had claimed a right belonging only to a state of blockade. Yet neither vessels nor car goes were to be confiscated unless otherwise liable to condemnation, which proposed a course of action as if no blockade existed. In his reply of 13 March 1915 Sir Edward Grey ad mitted that his government proposed °to es tablish a blockade to prevent vessels carrying goods for or coming from Germany.* The
failure to claim the right to confiscate ships or cargoes was due only to reluctance to exact from neutral vessels all the penalties of a breach of blockade.
At the same time a long memorandum was handed Ambassador Page, containing Great Eritain's reply to the American suggestions con cerning a basis of concessions. The German government, it said, had not accepted the pro posals, and it might appear that to point to this fact would be for Great Britain a suffi cient answer. But it desired to make a fuller statement of its whole position. Great Britain, in her conduct of the war, had observed strictly the rules of international law and the dictates of humanity. Germany, on the other hand, had been guilty of many. grievous of fenses; it had maltreated the civilian popula tion of Belgium and northern France, it had been cruel to British prisoners, it had bom barded open coast towns, it had bombed by aircraft places of no military importance. Ger many as well as the Allies had declared a blockade. *The difference between the two poli cies is, however, that while our object is the same as that of Germany, we propose to at tain it without sacrificing neutral ships or non combatant lives, or inflicting upon neutrals the dama.ge that must be entailed when a vessel and its cargo are sunk without notice, exami nation, or trial? Great Britain was unquestionably within her rights in stopping direct trade with Germany, but an attempt to blockade trade with neutral countries to prevent possible access to German territory was a far more dubious matter. Stirred to action by a guarded reference in the order to the possible necessity of blockading neutral ports the United States government, in a note of 30 March, took occasion to enter a new protest. *Such a blockade,* it said, *would constitute, were its provisions to be actually carried into effect as they stand, a practical as sertion of unlimited belligerent nghts over neutral conunerce within the whole European area, and an almost unqualified denial of the sovereign rights of the nations now at peace.* The novel feature of the blockade cgs that it embraces many neutral ports and coasts, bars access to them, and subjects all neutral ships to approach them* to the same penalties as vessels bound for enemy ports. Such limita tions on ships of a neutral nation were a dis tinct invasion of its sovereign rights.