New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 3, June, 1915
by Various · English · Gutenberg #15480 · 769,942 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 3, June, 1915
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 3, June, 1915
Author: Various
Release date: March 27, 2005 [eBook #15480]
Most recently updated: December 14, 2020
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15480
Credits: E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, Joshua Hutchinson, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK NEW YORK TIMES CURRENT HISTORY; THE EUROPEAN WAR, VOL 2, NO. 3, JUNE, 1915 ***
E-text prepared by Juliet Sutherland, Linda Cantoni, Joshua Hutchinson,
and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this
file which includes the original illustrations.
See 15480-h.htm or 15480-h.zip:
(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/4/8/15480/15480-h/15480-h.htm)
or
(https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/5/4/8/15480/15480-h.zip)
The New York Times
CURRENT HISTORY
A Monthly Magazine
THE EUROPEAN WAR, VOLUME II
April, 1915-September, 1915
With Index
Number III, June, 1915
[Illustration: (logo) THE N.Y. TIMES]
New York
The New York Times Company
1915
CONTENTS
NUMBER III. JUNE, 1915.
THE LUSITANIA CASE (With Map)
PRESIDENT WILSON'S SPEECHES AND NOTE TO GERMANY
History of a Series of Attacks on American Lives in the German War Zone
Page
AMERICAN NOTE TO GERMANY 409
GERMAN EMBASSY'S WARNING AND THE CONSEQUENCE 413
German Official Report 413
British Coroner's Verdict 414
German Note of Regret 415
England Answers Germany 415
Captain Turner Testifies 417
Lusitania's First Cabin List 418
DESCRIPTIONS BY SURVIVORS
Submarine Crew Observed 420
Ernest Cowper's Account 420
Charles Frohman's Death 422
Alfred Vanderbilt's Heroic End 423
Klein and Hubbard Lost 423
GERMANY JUSTIFIES THE DEED
German Official Report 424
Britain's Denial 424
Collector Malone's Denial 424
German Foreign Office Note on Neutrals 425
Dr. Dernburg's Defense 426
GERMAN PRESS OPINION
Comment in Germany and Austria 427
German-American Press Comment 430
FALABA, CUSHING, GULFLIGHT
Case of the Falaba 433
Case of the Cushing 434
Case of the Gulflight 435
AIM OF GERMAN SUBMARINE WARFARE 436
By Professor Flamm of Charlottenburg
THREE SPEECHES BY PRESIDENT WILSON
"AMERICA FIRST"--Address to the Associated Press 438
"HUMANITY FIRST"--Address at Philadelphia 441
"AMERICA FOR HUMANITY"--Address at the Fleet Review in New York 443
TWO EX-PRESIDENT'S VIEWS
Mr. Roosevelt Speaks 444
Mr. Taft Speaks 446
PRESIDENT WILSON'S NOTE 447
By Ex-President William H. Taft
ANOTHER VIEW (Poem) 447
By Beatrice Barry
IN THE SUBMARINE WAR ZONE 447
By The Associated Press
AMERICAN SHIPMENTS OF ARMS 448
By Count von Bernstorff
AMERICAN REPLY TO COUNT VON BERNSTORFF 449
MUNITIONS FROM NEUTRALS 451
Colloquy in the House of Commons
GERMANY AND THE LUSITANIA 452
By Dr. Charles W. Eliot
APPEALS FOR AMERICAN DEFENSE 455
THE DROWNED SAILOR (Poem) 457
By Maurice Hewlett
WAR WITH POISONOUS GASES (With Maps)
THE GAP AT YPRES MADE BY GERMAN CHLORINE VAPOR BOMBS
Reports by the Official "Eyewitness" and Dr. J.S. Haldane, F.R.S.
DR. HALDANE'S REPORT 458
THE "EYEWITNESS" STORY 459
WHAT THE GERMANS SAY 462
THE CANADIANS AT YPRES 463
VAPOR WARFARE RESUMED 471
TO CERTAIN GERMAN PROFESSORS OF CHEMICS (Poem) 478
By Sir Owen Seaman in Punch
SEVEN DAYS OF WAR EAST AND WEST (With Map) 479
By a Military Expert of The New York Times
AUSTRO-GERMAN SUCCESS 484
By Major E. Moraht
THE CAMPAIGN IN THE CARPATHIANS (With Map) 486
Russian Victory Succeeded by Reverses
ITALY IN THE WAR (With Maps)
HER MOVE AGAINST AUSTRO-HUNGARY
Last Phase of Italian Neutrality and Causes of the Struggle
DECLARATION OF WAR 490
FRANCIS JOSEPH'S DEFIANCE 490
ITALY'S CABINET EMPOWERED 491
ITALY'S JUSTIFICATION 494
By Foreign Minister Sonnino
GERMAN HATRED OF ITALY 497
ITALY'S NEUTRALITY--THE LAST PHASE 499
German, Serbian, and Italian Press Opinion
ANNUNCIATION (Poem) 503
By Ernst Lissauer
THE DARDANELLES (With Map) 504
ALLIES' SECOND CAMPAIGN WITH FLEETS AND LAND FORCES
"WAR BABIES" 516
From The Suffragette of London
THE EUROPEAN WAR AS SEEN BY CARTOONISTS 517
(With a Selection of American Cartoons on the Lusitania Case)
WHAT IS OUR DUTY? 533
By Emmeline Pankhurst
THE SOLDIER'S PASS (Poem) 536
By Maurice Hewlett
THE GREAT END 537
By Arnold Bennett
GERMAN WOMEN NOT YET FOR PEACE 540
By Gertrude Baumer
DIAGNOSIS OF THE ENGLISHMAN 541
By John Galsworthy
MY TERMS OF PEACE 545
By George Bernard Shaw
A POLICY OF MURDER 546
By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
THE SOLDIER'S EPITAPH (Poem) 548
From Truth
THE WILL TO POWER 549
By Eden Phillpotts
ALLEGED GERMAN ATROCITIES
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT
And Presided Over by The Right Hon. Viscount Bryce
Formerly British Ambassador at Washington
WARRANT OF BRYCE COMMITTEE'S APPOINTMENT 551
PART I 555
PART II 580
SCRIABIN'S LAST WORDS 591
CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR 592
THE DRINK QUESTION (Poem) 612
From _Truth_
[Illustration: H.M. QUEEN ELIZABETH
Queen of the Belgians. Though Born a Bavarian Duchess, She Has Equaled
Her Husband in Devotion to Belgium
(Photo from Bain News Service.)]
[Illustration: KRONPRINZ WILHELM AND HIS FAMILY
The Kronprinzessin Cecilie and the Little Princes Wilhelm, Ludwig
Ferdinand, Hubertus, and Friedrich
(Photo by American Press Assoc.)]
The New York Times
CURRENT HISTORY
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE
THE EUROPEAN WAR
JUNE, 1915
THE LUSITANIA CASE
President Wilson's Speeches and Note to Germany
History of a Series of Attacks on American Lives in the German War Zone
President Wilson's note to Germany, written consequent on the
torpedoing by a German submarine on May 7, 1915, of the
British passenger steamship Lusitania, off Kinsale Head,
Ireland, by which over 100 American citizens lost their lives,
is dated six days later, showing that time for careful
deliberation was duly taken. The President's Secretary, Joseph
P. Tumulty, on May 8 made this statement:
"Of course, the President feels the distress and the gravity
of the situation to the utmost, and is considering very
earnestly, but very calmly, the right course of action to
pursue. He knows that the people of the country wish and
expect him to act with deliberation as well as with firmness."
Although signed by Mr. Bryan, as Secretary of State, the note
was written originally by the President in shorthand--a
favorite method of Mr. Wilson in making memoranda--and
transcribed by him on his own typewriter. The document was
then presented to the members of the President's Cabinet, a
draft of it was sent to Counselor Lansing of the State
Department, and, after a few minor changes, it was transmitted
by cable to Ambassador Gerard in Berlin.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, May 13, 1915.
The Secretary of State to the American Ambassador at Berlin:
Please call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and after reading to him
this communication leave with him a copy.
In view of recent acts of the German authorities in violation of
American rights on the high seas, which culminated in the torpedoing and
sinking of the British steamship Lusitania on May 7, 1915, by which over
100 American citizens lost their lives, it is clearly wise and desirable
that the Government of the United States and the Imperial German
Government should come to a clear and full understanding as to the grave
situation which has resulted.
The sinking of the British passenger steamer Falaba by a German
submarine on March 28, through which Leon C. Thrasher, an American
citizen, was drowned; the attack on April 28 on the American vessel
Cushing by a German aeroplane; the torpedoing on May 1 of the American
vessel Gulflight by a German submarine, as a result of which two or more
American citizens met their death; and, finally, the torpedoing and
sinking of the steamship Lusitania, constitute a series of events which
the Government of the United States has observed with growing concern,
distress, and amazement.
Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hitherto assumed by the
Imperial German Government in matters of international right, and
particularly with regard to the freedom of the seas; having learned to
recognize the German views and the German influence in the field of
international obligation as always engaged upon the side of justice and
humanity; and having understood the instructions of the Imperial German
Government to its naval commanders to be upon the same plane of humane
action prescribed by the naval codes of other nations, the Government of
the United States was loath to believe--it cannot now bring itself to
believe--that these acts, so absolutely contrary to the rules, the
practices, and the spirit of modern warfare, could have the countenance
or sanction of that great Government. It feels it to be its duty,
therefore, to address the Imperial German Government concerning them
with the utmost frankness and in the earnest hope that it is not
mistaken in expecting action on the part of the Imperial German
Government which will correct the unfortunate impressions which have
been created, and vindicate once more the position of that Government
with regard to the sacred freedom of the seas.
The Government of the United States has been apprised that the Imperial
German Government considered themselves to be obliged by the
extraordinary circumstances of the present war and the measures adopted
by their adversaries in seeking to cut Germany off from all commerce, to
adopt methods of retaliation which go much beyond the ordinary methods
of warfare at sea, in the proclamation of a war zone from which they
have warned neutral ships to keep away. This Government has already
taken occasion to inform the Imperial German Government that it cannot
admit the adoption of such measures or such a warning of danger to
operate as in any degree an abbreviation of the rights of American
shipmasters or of American citizens bound on lawful errands as
passengers on merchant ships of belligerent nationality, and that it
must hold the Imperial German Government to a strict accountability for
any infringement of those rights, intentional or incidental. It does not
understand the Imperial German Government to question those rights. It
assumes, on the contrary, that the Imperial Government accept, as of
course, the rule that the lives of noncombatants, whether they be of
neutral citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot
lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction
of an unarmed merchantman, and recognize also, as all other nations do,
the obligation to take the usual precaution of visit and search to
ascertain whether a suspected merchantman is in fact of belligerent
nationality or is in fact carrying contraband of war under a neutral
flag.
The Government of the United States, therefore, desires to call the
attention of the Imperial German Government with the utmost earnestness
to the fact that the objection to their present method of attack against
the trade of their enemies lies in the practical impossibility of
employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding
those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which all modern
opinion regards as imperative. It is practically impossible for the
officers of a submarine to visit a merchantman at sea and examine her
papers and cargo. It is practically impossible for them to make a prize
of her; and, if they cannot put a prize crew on board of her, they
cannot sink her without leaving her crew and all on board of her to the
mercy of the sea in her small boats. These facts it is understood the
Imperial German Government frankly admit. We are informed that in the
instances of which we have spoken time enough for even that poor measure
of safety was not given, and in at least two of the cases cited not so
much as a warning was received. Manifestly, submarines cannot be used
against merchantmen, as the last few weeks have shown, without an
inevitable violation of many sacred principles of justice and humanity.
American citizens act within their indisputable rights in taking their
ships and in traveling wherever their legitimate business calls them
upon the high seas, and exercise those rights in what should be the
well-justified confidence that their lives will not be endangered by
acts done in clear violation of universally acknowledged international
obligations, and certainly in the confidence that their own Government
will sustain them in the exercise of their rights.
There was recently published in the newspapers of the United States, I
regret to inform the Imperial German Government, a formal warning,
purporting to come from the Imperial German Embassy at Washington,
addressed to the people of the United States, and stating, in effect,
that any citizen of the United States who exercised his right of free
travel upon the seas would do so at his peril if his journey should take
him within the zone of waters within which the Imperial German Navy was
using submarines against the commerce of Great Britain and France,
notwithstanding the respectful but very earnest protest of his
Government, the Government of the United States. I do not refer to this
for the purpose of calling the attention of the Imperial German
Government at this time to the surprising irregularity of a
communication from the Imperial German Embassy at Washington addressed
to the people of the United States through the newspapers, but only for
the purpose of pointing out that no warning that an unlawful and
inhumane act will be committed can possibly be accepted as an excuse or
palliation for that act or as an abatement of the responsibility for its
commission.
Long acquainted as this Government has been with the character of the
Imperial Government, and with the high principles of equity by which
they have in the past been actuated and guided, the Government of the
United States cannot believe that the commanders of the vessels which
committed these acts of lawlessness did so except under a
misapprehension of the orders issued by the Imperial German naval
authorities. It takes it for granted that, at least within the practical
possibilities of every such case, the commanders even of submarines were
expected to do nothing that would involve the lives of noncombatants or
the safety of neutral ships, even at the cost of failing of their object
of capture or destruction. It confidently expects, therefore, that the
Imperial German Government will disavow the acts of which the Government
of the United States complains; that they will make reparation so far as
reparation is possible for injuries which are without measure, and that
they will take immediate steps to prevent the recurrence of anything so
obviously subversive of the principles of warfare for which the Imperial
German Government have in the past so wisely and so firmly contended.
The Government and people of the United States look to the Imperial
German Government for just, prompt, and enlightened action in this vital
matter with the greater confidence, because the United States and
Germany are bound together not only by special ties of friendship, but
also by the explicit stipulations of the Treaty of 1828, between the
United States and the Kingdom of Prussia.
Expressions of regret and offers of reparation in case of the
destruction of neutral ships sunk by mistake, while they may satisfy
international obligations, if no loss of life results, cannot justify or
excuse a practice the natural and necessary effect of which is to
subject neutral nations and neutral persons to new and immeasurable
risks.
The Imperial German Government will not expect the Government of the
United States to omit any word or any act necessary to the performance
of its sacred duty of maintaining the rights of the United States and
its citizens and of safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment.
BRYAN.
THE WARNING AND THE CONSEQUENCE--
THE GERMAN WARNING.
[On Saturday, May 1, the day that the Lusitania left New York on her
last voyage, the following advertisement bearing the authentication of
the German Embassy at Washington appeared in the chief newspapers of the
United States, placed next the advertisement of the Cunard Line:
NOTICE!
TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are
reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her
allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war
includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in
accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German
Government vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or of any
of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and
that travellers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great
Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY
WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 22, 1915.
Despite this warning, relying on President Wilson's note to Germany of
Feb. 10, 1915, which declared that the United States would "hold the
Imperial Government of Germany to a strict accountability" for such an
act within the submarine zone; relying, also, on the speed of the ship,
and hardly conceiving that the threat would be carried out, over two
thousand men, women, and children embarked. The total toll of the dead
was 1,150, of whom 114 were known to be American citizens.
The German Embassy's warning advertisement was repeated on May 8, the
day following the loss of the Lusitania. On May 12 the German Embassy
notified the newspapers to discontinue publication of the advertisement,
which had been scheduled to appear for the third time on the following
Saturday.]
GERMAN OFFICIAL REPORT.
[By The Associated Press.]
_BERLIN, May 14, (via Amsterdam to London, May 15.)--From the report
received from the submarine which sank the Cunard Line steamer Lusitania
last Friday the following official version of the incident is published
by the Admiralty Staff over the signature of Admiral Behncke:_
The submarine sighted the steamer, which showed no flag, May 7 at 2:20
o'clock, Central European time, afternoon, on the southeast coast of
Ireland, in fine, clear weather.
At 3:10 o'clock one torpedo was fired at the Lusitania, which hit her
starboard side below the Captain's bridge. The detonation of the torpedo
was followed immediately by a further explosion of extremely strong
effect. The ship quickly listed to starboard and began to sink.
The second explosion must be traced back to the ignition of quantities
of ammunition inside the ship.
_It appears from this report that the submarine sighted the Lusitania at
1:20 o'clock, London time, and fired the torpedo at 2:10 o'clock, London
time. The Lusitania, according to all reports, was traveling at the rate
of eighteen knots an hour. As fifty minutes elapsed between the sighting
and the torpedoing, the Lusitania when first seen from the submarine
must have been distant nearly fifteen knots, or about seventeen land
miles. The Lusitania must have been recognized at the first appearance
of the tops of her funnels above the horizon. To the Captain on the
bridge of the Lusitania the submarine would have been at that time
invisible, being below the horizon._
[Illustration: Map Showing Locations of Ships Attacked in Submarine War
Zone with American Citizens Aboard.]
BRITISH CORONER'S VERDICT.
[By The Associated Press.]
_KINSALE, Ireland, May 10.--The verdict, rendered here today by the
coroner's jury, which investigated five deaths resulting from the
torpedoing of the Lusitania, is as follows:_
We find that the deceased met death from prolonged immersion and
exhaustion in the sea eight miles south-southeast of Old Head of
Kinsale, Friday, May 7, 1915, owing to the sinking of the Lusitania by
torpedoes fired by a German, submarine.
We find that the appalling crime was committed contrary to international
law and the conventions of all civilized nations.
We also charge the officers of said submarine and the Emperor and the
Government of Germany, under whose orders they acted, with the crime of
wholesale murder before the tribunal of the civilized world.
We desire to express sincere condolences and sympathy with the relatives
of the deceased, the Cunard Company, and the United States, many of
whose citizens perished in this murderous attack on an unarmed liner.
GERMAN NOTE OF REGRET.
_BERLIN, (via London,) May 10.--The following dispatch has been sent by
the German Foreign Office to the German Embassy at Washington:_
Please communicate the following to the State Department: The German
Government desires to express its deepest sympathy at the loss of lives
on board the Lusitania. The responsibility rests, however, with the
British Government, which, through its plan of starving the civilian
population of Germany, has forced Germany to resort to retaliatory
measures.
In spite of the German offer to stop the submarine war in case the
starvation plan was given up, British merchant vessels are being
generally armed with guns and have repeatedly tried to ram submarines,
so that a previous search was impossible.
They cannot, therefore, be treated as ordinary merchant vessels. A
recent declaration made to the British Parliament by the Parliamentary
Secretary in answer to a question by Lord Charles Beresford said that at
the present practically all British merchant vessels were armed and
provided with hand grenades.
Besides, it has been openly admitted by the English press that the
Lusitania on previous voyages repeatedly carried large quantities of war
material. On the present voyage the Lusitania carried 5,400 cases of
ammunition, while the rest of her cargo also consisted chiefly of
contraband.
If England, after repeated official and unofficial warnings, considered
herself able to declare that that boat ran no risk and thus
light-heartedly assumed responsibility for the human life on board a
steamer which, owing to its armament and cargo, was liable to
destruction, the German Government, in spite of its heartfelt sympathy
for the loss of American lives, cannot but regret that Americans felt
more inclined to trust to English promises rather than to pay attention
to the warnings from the German side.
FOREIGN OFFICE.
ENGLAND ANSWERS GERMANY.[A]
[By The Associated Press.]
[Footnote A: In Germany's reply to the American protest against certain
features of the "war zone" order, which was received in Washington on
Feb. 14, occurred this expression:
If the United States ... should succeed at the last moment in
removing the grounds which make that procedure [submarine
warfare on merchant vessels] an obligatory duty for Germany
... and thereby make possible for Germany legitimate
importation of the necessaries of life and industrial raw
material, then the German Government ... would gladly draw
conclusions from the new situation.
In the German note to the American Government justifying the sinking of
the Lusitania presented above, appears this clause:
In spite of the German offer to stop the submarine war in case
the starvation plan was given up....
These two expressions are referred to in the British official statement,
published herewith, in these words:
It was not understood from the reply of the German Government
[of Feb. 14] that they were prepared to abandon the principle
of sinking British vessels by submarine.
Whether this may regarded as an opening for the renewal of the German
offer in explicit terms, with the implication that England might accept
it, is not explained.]
_LONDON, Wednesday, May 12.--Inquiry in official circles elicited last
night the following statement, representing the official British view of
Germany's justification for torpedoing the Lusitania which Berlin
transmitted to the State Department at Washington:_
The German Government states that responsibility for the loss of the
Lusitania rests with the British Government, which through their plan of
starving the civil population of Germany has forced Germany to resort to
retaliatory measures The reply to this is as follows:
As far back as last December Admiral von Tirpitz, (the German Marine
Minister,) in an interview, foreshadowed a submarine blockade of Great
Britain, and a merchant ship and a hospital ship were torpedoed Jan. 30
and Feb. 1, respectively.
The German Government on Feb. 4 declared their intention of instituting
a general submarine blockade of Great Britain and Ireland, with the
avowed purpose of cutting off supplies for these islands. This blockade
was put into effect Feb. 18.
As already stated, merchant vessels had, as a matter of fact, been sunk
by a German submarine at the end of January. Before Feb. 4 no vessel
carrying food supplies for Germany had been held up by his Majesty's
Government except on the ground that there was reason to believe the
foodstuffs were intended for use of the armed forces of the enemy or the
enemy Government.
His Majesty's Government had, however informed the State Department on
Jan. 29 that they felt bound to place in a prize court the foodstuffs of
the steamer Wilhelmina, which was going to a German port, in view of the
Government control of foodstuffs in Germany, as being destined for the
enemy Government and, therefore, liable to capture.
The decision of his Majesty's Government to carry out the measures laid
down by the Order in Council was due to the action of the German
Government in insisting on their submarine blockade.
This, added to other infractions of international law by Germany, led to
British reprisals, which differ from the German action in that his
Majesty's Government scrupulously respect the lives of noncombatants
traveling in merchant vessels, and do not even enforce the recognized
penalty of confiscation for a breach of the blockade, whereas the German
policy is to sink enemy or neutral vessels at sight, with total
disregard for the lives of noncombatants and the property of neutrals.
The Germans state that, in spite of their offer to stop their submarine
war in case the starvation plan was given up, Great Britain has taken
even more stringent blockade measures. The answer to this is as follows:
It was not understood from the reply of the German Government that they
were prepared to abandon the principle of sinking British vessels by
submarine.
They have refused to abandon the use of mines for offensive purposes on
the high seas on any condition. They have committed various other
infractions of international law, such as strewing the high seas and
trade routes with mines, and British and neutral vessels will continue
to run danger from this course, whether Germany abandons her submarine
blockade or not.
It should be noted that since the employment of submarines, contrary to
international law, the Germans also have been guilty of the use of
asphyxiating gas. They have even proceeded to the poisoning of water in
South Africa.
The Germans represent British merchant vessels generally as armed with
guns and say that they repeatedly ram submarines. The answer to this is
as follows:
It is not to be wondered at that merchant vessels, knowing they are
liable to be sunk without warning and without any chance being given
those on board to save their lives, should take measures for
self-defense.
With regard to the Lusitania: The vessel was not armed on her last
voyage, and had not been armed during the whole war.
The Germans attempt to justify the sinking of the Lusitania by the fact
that she had arms and ammunition on board. The presence of contraband on
board a neutral vessel does render her liable to capture, but certainly
not to destruction, with the loss of a large portion of her crew and
passengers. Every enemy vessel is a fair prize, but there is no legal
provision, not to speak of the principles of humanity, which would
justify what can only be described as murder because a vessel carries
contraband.
The Germans maintain that after repeated official and unofficial
warnings his Majesty's Government were responsible for the loss of life,
as they considered themselves able to declare that the boat ran no risk,
and thus "light-heartedly assume the responsibility for the human lives
on board a steamer which, owing to its armament and cargo, is liable to
destruction." The reply thereto is:
First--His Majesty's Government never declared the boat ran no risk.
Second--The fact that the Germans issued their warning shows that the
crime was premeditated. They had no more right to murder passengers
after warning them than before.
Third--In spite of their attempts to put the blame on Great Britain, it
will tax the ingenuity even of the Germans to explain away the fact that
it was a German torpedo, fired by a German seaman from a German
submarine, that sank the vessel and caused over 1,000 deaths.
CAPTAIN TURNER TESTIFIES.
[By The Associated Press.]
_KINSALE, Ireland, May 10.--The inquest which began here Saturday over
five victims of the Lusitania was concluded today. A vital feature of
the hearing was the testimony of Captain W.T. Turner of the lost
steamship. Coroner Horga questioned him:_
"You were aware threats had been made that the ship would be torpedoed?"
"We were," the Captain replied.
"Was she armed?"
"No, Sir."
"What precautions did you take?"
"We had all the boats swung when we came within the danger zone, between
the passing of Fastnet and the time of the accident."
The Coroner asked him whether he had received a message concerning the
sinking of a ship off Kinsale by a submarine. Captain Turner replied
that he had not.
"Did you receive any special instructions as to the voyage?"
"Yes, Sir."
"Are you at liberty to tell us what they were?"
"No, Sir."
"Did you carry them out?"
"Yes, to the best of my ability."
"Tell us in your own words what happened after passing Fastnet."
"The weather was clear," Captain Turner answered. "We were going at a
speed of eighteen knots. I was on the port side and heard Second
Officer Hefford call out:
"'Here's a torpedo.'
"I ran to the other side and saw clearly the wake of a torpedo. Smoke
and steam came up between the last two funnels. There was a slight
shock. Immediately after the first explosion there was another report,
but that may possibly have been internal.
"I at once gave the order to lower the boats down to the rails, and I
directed that women and children should get into them. I also had all
the bulkheads closed.
"Between the time of passing Fastnet, about 11 o'clock, and of the
torpedoing I saw no sign whatever of any submarines. There was some haze
along the Irish coast, and when we were near Fastnet I slowed down to
fifteen knots. I was in wireless communication with shore all the way
across."
Captain Turner was asked whether he had received any messages in regard
to the presence of submarines off the Irish coast. He replied in the
affirmative. Questioned regarding the nature of the message, he replied:
"I respectfully refer you to the Admiralty for an answer."
"I also gave orders to stop the ship," Captain Turner continued, "but we
could not stop. We found that the engines were out of commission. It was
not safe to lower boats until the speed was off the vessel. As a matter
of fact, there was a perceptible headway on her up to the time she went
down.
"When she was struck she listed to starboard. I stood on the bridge when
she sank, and the Lusitania went down under me. She floated about
eighteen minutes after the torpedo struck her. My watch stopped at 2:36.
I was picked up from among the wreckage and afterward was brought aboard
a trawler.
"No warship was convoying us. I saw no warship, and none was reported to
me as having been seen. At the time I was picked up I noticed bodies
floating on the surface, but saw no living persons."
"Eighteen knots was not the normal speed of the Lusitania, was it?"
"At ordinary times," answered Captain Turner, "she could make 25 knots,
but in war times her speed was reduced to 21 knots. My reason for going
18 knots was that I wanted to arrive at Liverpool bar without stopping,
and within two or three hours of high water."
"Was there a lookout kept for submarines having regard to previous
warnings?"
"Yes, we had double lookouts."
"Were you going a zigzag course at the moment the torpedoing took
place?"
"No. It was bright weather, and land was clearly visible."
"Was it possible for a submarine to approach without being seen?"
"Oh, yes; quite possible."
"Something has been said regarding the impossibility of launching the
boats on the port side?"
"Yes," said Captain Turner, "owing to the listing of the ship."
"How many boats were launched safely?"
"I cannot say."
"Were any launched safely?"
"Yes, and one or two on the port side."
"Were your orders promptly carried out?"
"Yes."
"Was there any panic on board?"
"No, there was no panic at all. It was all most calm."
"How many persons were on board?"
"There were 1,500 passengers and about 600 crew."
By the foreman of the jury--In the face of the warnings at New York that
the Lusitania would be torpedoed, did you make any application to the
Admiralty for an escort?
"No, I left that to them. It is their business, not mine. I simply had
to carry out my orders to go, and I would do it again."
Captain Turner uttered the last words of this reply with great emphasis.
By the Coroner--I am very glad to hear you say so, Captain.
By a juryman--Did you get a wireless to steer your vessel in a northern
direction?
"No," replied Captain Turner.
"Was the course of the vessel altered after the torpedoes struck her?"
"I headed straight for land, but it was useless. Previous to this the
watertight bulkheads were closed. I suppose the explosion forced them
open. I don't know the exact extent to which the Lusitania was damaged."
"There must have been serious damage done to the watertight bulkheads?"
"There certainly was, without doubt."
"Were the passengers supplied with lifebelts?"
"Yes."
"Were any special orders given that morning that lifebelts be put on?"
"No."
"Was any warning given before you were torpedoed?"
"None whatever. It was suddenly done and finished."
"If there had been a patrol boat about might it have been of
assistance?"
"It might, but it is one of those things one never knows."
With regard to the threats against his ship Captain Turner said he saw
nothing except what appeared in the New York papers the day before the
Lusitania sailed. He had never heard the passengers talking about the
threats, he said.
"Was a warning given to the lower decks after the ship had been struck?"
Captain Turner was asked.
"All the passengers must have heard the explosion," Captain Turner
replied.
Captain Turner, in answer to another question, said he received no
report from the lookout before the torpedo struck the Lusitania.
Ship's Bugler Livermore testified that the watertight compartments were
closed, but that the explosion and the force of the water must have
burst them open. He said that all the officers were at their posts and
that earlier arrivals of the rescue craft would not have saved the
situation.
After physicians had testified that the victims had met death through
prolonged immersion and exhaustion the Coroner summed up the case.
He said that the first torpedo fired by the German submarine did serious
damage to the Lusitania, but that, not satisfied with this, the
Germans had discharged another torpedo. The second torpedo, he said,
must have been more deadly, because it went right through the ship,
hastening the work of destruction.
[Illustration: "Lusitania's" First Cabin List
May 22, 1915.
List of
SALOON PASSENGERS
BY THE QUADRUPLE-SCREW TURBINE
R.M.S. "Lusitania"
Captain
* W.T. Turner, R.N.R.
Staff-Captain
@ J.C. ANDERSON
@ CHIEF ENGINEER--A. BRYCE
@ SURGEON--J.F. McDERMOTT
@ ASST SURGEON--J. GARRY
@ CHIEF OFFICER--J.T. PIPER
@ PURSER--J.A. McCUBBIN
* 2ND PURSER--P. DRAPER
* CHIEF STEWARD--J.V. JONES
From New York to Liverpool, May 1st 1915.
Mr. Henry Adams England.
Mrs. Adams England.
Mr. A.H. Adams London, Eng.
* Mr. William McM. Adams London, Eng.
* Lady Allan Montreal, Can.
* and maid (_Emily Davies_)
Miss Anna Allan Montreal, Can.
@ Miss Gwen Allan Montreal, Can.
* and maid (_Annie Walker_)
* Mr. N.N. Alles New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Julian de Ayala Liverpool, Eng.
(_Consul General for Cuba at Liverpool_)
* Mr. James Baker England.
Miss Margaret A. Baker New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Allan Barnes Toronto, Ont.
* Mr. G.W.B. Bartlett London, Eng.
Mrs. Bartlett London, Eng.
Mr. Lindon Bates Jr. New York, N.Y.
* Mr. J.J. Battersby Stockport, Eng.
* Mr. Oliver Bernard Boston, Mass.
* Mr. Charles P. Bernard New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. Albert C. Bilicke Los Angeles, Cal.
* Mrs. Bilicke Los Angeles, Cal.
Mr. Harry B. Baldwin New York, N.Y.
Mrs. Baldwin New York, N.Y.
Mr. Leonidas Bistis Greece.
Mr. James J. Black Liverpool, Eng.
Mr. Thomas Bloomfield New York, N.Y.
* Mr. James Bohan Toronto, Canada.
* Mr. Harold Boulton Jr. Chicago, Ill.
* Mr. Charles W. Bowring New York, N.Y.
Miss Dorothy Braithwaite Montreal, Can.
* Miss Josephine Brandell New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. C.T. Brodrick Boston, Mass.
* Mr. J.H. Brooks Bridgeport, Conn.
Mrs. Mary C. Brown New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. H.A. Bruno Montclair, N.J.
Mrs. Bruno Montclair, N.J.
* Mrs. J.S. Burnside Toronto, Ont.
* and maid (_Martha Waites_) Toronto, Ont.
Miss Iris Burnside Toronto, Ont.
* Mr. A.J. Byington London, Eng.
* Mr. Michael G. Byrne New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Peter Buswell England.
@ Mr. William H.H. Brown Buffalo, N.Y.
* Mr. Hy. G. Burgess England.
* Mr. Robert W. Cairns Booked on Board
Mr. Conway S. Campbell-Johnston Los Angeles, Cal.
@ Mrs. Campbell-Johnston Los Angeles, Cal.
Mr. Alexander Campbell London, Eng.
@ Mr. David L. Chabot Montreal, Can.
* Mrs. W. Chapman Toronto, Canada.
* Mr. John H. Charles Toronto, Canada.
* Miss Doris Charles Toronto, Canada.
* Rev. Cowley Clarke London, Eng.
* Mr. A.R. Clarke Toronto, Canada.
@ Mr. W. Broderick Cloete San Antonio, Tex.
* Mr. H.G. Colebrook Toronto, Canada.
* Miss Dorothy Conner New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. George R. Copping Toronto, Canada.
Mrs. Copping Toronto, Canada.
@ Mrs. William Crichton New York, N.Y.
Mr. Paul Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
Mrs. Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
Master Peter Crompton (_8 months_)
and nurse (_Dorothy D. Allen_)
@ Master Steven Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
(_17 years_)
Master John David Crompton Philadelphia. Pa.
(_6 years_)
Master Paul Romelly Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
(_9 years_)
Miss Alberta Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
(_12 years_)
Miss Catherine Crompton Philadelphia, Pa.
(_10 Years_)
@ Mr. Robert W. Crooks Toronto, Canada.
* Mr. A.B. Cross F. Malay States.
* Mr. Harold M. Daly Ottawa, Ont.
@ Mr. Robert E. Dearbergh New York, N.Y.
@ Mrs. A. Depage Belgium.
Mr. C.A. Dingwall London, Eng.
Miss C. Dougall Guelph, Ont.
Mr. Audley Drake Detroit, Mich.
Mr. Alan Dredge British Honduras.
Mrs. Dredge British Honduras.
Mr. James Dunsmuir Toronto, Canada.
Mr. W.A. Emond Quebec, Can.
Mr. John Fenwick Switzerland
* Dr. Howard Fisher New York, N.Y.
Mr. Justin M. Forman New York, N.Y.
Mr. Chas. F. Fowles New York, N.Y.
@ Mrs. Fowles New York, N.Y.
Mr. Richard R. Freeman Jr. Boston, Mass.
Mr. J. Friedenstein London, Eng.
Mr. Edwin W. Friend Farmington, Ct.
@ Mr. Charles Frohman New York, N.Y.
@ and valet (_Wm. Stainton_)
* Mr. Fred. J. Gauntlett New York, N.Y.
Mr. Mathew Gibson Glasgow, Scot.
Mr. George A. Gilpin England.
Mr. Edgar Gorer London, Eng.
* Mr. Oscar F. Grab New York, N.Y.
Mr. Montagu T. Grant Chicago, Ill.
Mrs. Grant Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Frederick S. Hammond Toronto, Canada.
* Mrs. F.S. Hammond Toronto, Canada.
* Mr. O.H. Hammond New York, N.Y.
Mrs. O.H. Hammond New York, N.Y.
* Mr. C.C. Hardwick New York, N.Y.
Mr. John H. Harper New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Dwight C. Harris New York, N.Y.
Mr. F.W. Hawkins Winnipeg, Man.
@ Miss Katheryn Hickson New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Charles T. Hill London, Eng.
Mr. William S. Hodges Philadelphia, Pa.
Mrs. Hodges Philadelphia, Pa.
@ Master W.S. Hodges Jr. Philadelphia, Pa.
Master Dean W. Hodges Philadelphia, Pa.
* Master W.R.G. Holt Montreal, Can.
* Mr. Thomas Home Toronto, Canada.
@ Mr. Albert L. Hopkins New York, N.Y.
* Dr. J.T. Houghton Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Mr. Elbert Hubbard E. Aurora, N.Y.
Mrs. Hubbard E. Aurora, N.Y.
Miss P. Hutchinson England.
* Mr. C.T. Jeffery Chicago, Ill.
* Mr. Francis B. Jenkins New York, N.Y.
* Miss Rita Jolivet Paris, France.
@ Miss Margaret D. Jones Honolulu, Hawaii.
* Mr. W. Keeble Toronto, Canada.
* Mrs. Keeble Toronto, Canada.
Mr. Francis C. Kellett Tuckahoe, N.Y.
* Mr. Maitland Kempson Toronto, Canada.
* Dr. Owen Kenan New York, N.Y.
Mrs. C. Hickson Kennedy New York, N.Y.
Mr. Harry J. Keser Philadelphia, Pa.
@ Mrs. Keser Philadelphia, Pa.
* Mr. Geo. A. Kessler New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. Thos. B. King New York, N.Y.
Mr. Charles Klein London, Eng.
Mr. C. Harwood Knight Baltimore, Md.
Miss Elaine H. Knight Baltimore, Md.
* Mr. S.M. Knox Philadelphia, Pa.
Sir Hugh Lane England.
* Mrs. H.H. Lassetter London, Eng.
* Mr. F. Lassetter London, Eng.
* Mr. Charles E. Lauriat Jr. Boston, Mass.
Mr. C.A. Learoyd Sidney, Aus.
* Mrs. Learoyd Sidney, Aus.
* and maid (_Marg't Hurley_)
* Mr. James Leary New York, N.Y.
Mr. Evan A. Leigh Liverpool, Eng.
* Mr. Isaac Lehmann New York, N.Y.
* Miss Dilane Lehmann Booked on Board
* Mr. Martin Lehmann Booked on Board
Mr. Joseph Levinson Jr. Canada.
Mr. Gerald A. Letts New York, N.Y.
Mr. F. Guy Lewin England.
* Mrs. Popham Lobb New York, N.Y.
* Mr. R.R. Lockhart Toronto, Canada.
Mr. Allen D. Loney New York, N.Y.
Mrs. Loney New York, N.Y.
and maid (_Elise Boutellier_)
* Miss Virginia Loney New York, N.Y.
Mrs. A.C. Luck Worcester, Mass.
Master Eldridge C. Luck Worcester, Mass.
Master Kenneth T. Luck Worcester, Mass.
* Mr. John W. McConnel Manchester, Eng.
Mr. William McLean France.
Mr. F.E. MacLennan Glasgow, Scot.
* Mr. Louis McMurray Toronto, Canada.
Mr. Fred. A. McMurtry New York, N.Y.
@ Mrs. Henry D. Macdona New York, N.Y.
* Lady Mackworth Cardiff, Wales.
Mr. Stewart S. Mason Boston, Mass.
@ Mrs. Mason Boston, Mass.
* Mr. Arthur T. Mathews Montreal, Can.
@ Rev. Basil W. Maturin Oxford, Eng.
Mr. George Maurice London, Eng.
Mr. Maurice B. Medbury New York, N.Y.
Capt. J.B. Miller Washington, D.C.
Mr. Charles V. Mills New York, N.Y.
Mr. James D. Mitchell England.
Mr. R.T. Moodie Gainesville, Tex.
* Mrs. M.S. Morell Toronto, Canada.
Mr. K.J. Morrison Canada.
* Mr. G.G. Mosley England.
Mrs. C. Munro Liverpool, Eng.
Mr. Herman A. Myers New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Joseph L. Myers New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. F.G. Naumann England.
@ Mr. Gustaf Adolf Nyblom Canada.
* Mr. F. Orr-Lewis Montreal, Can.
* and manservant (_Geo. Slingsby_)
* Mrs. A.B. Osborne Hamilton, Ont.
Mrs. T.O. Osbourne Glasgow, Scot.
* Mrs. F. Padley Liverpool, Eng.
@ Mr. Frederico G. Padila Liverpool, Eng.
(_Consul Gen'l for Mexico at Liverpool_)
Mr. J.H. Page New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. M.N. Pappadopoulo Greece.
* Mrs. Pappadopoulo Greece.
* Mr. Frank Partridge New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. Charles E. Paynter Liverpool, Eng.
* Miss Irene Paynter Liverpool, Eng.
Mr. F.A. Peardon Toronto, Can.
@ Dr. F.S. Pearson New York, N.Y.
@ Mrs. Pearson New York, N.Y.
* Major F. Warren Pearl New York, N.Y.
* Mrs. Pearl New York, N.Y.
* infant
and maid (_Greta Lorenson_)
Miss Amy W.W. Pearl New York, N.Y.
Miss Susan W. Pearl New York, N.Y.
* and maid (_Alice Lines_)
* Master Stuart Duncan D. Pearl New York, N.Y.
Mr. Edwin Perkins England.
* Mr. Frederick J. Perry Buffalo, N.Y.
@ Mr. Albert Norris Perry Buffalo, N.Y.
* Mr. Wallace B. Phillips New York, N.Y.
* Mr. Robinson Pirie Hamilton, Ont.
* Mr. William J. Pierpoint Liverpool, Eng.
@ Mr. Charles A. Plamondon Chicago, Ill.
@ Mrs. Plamondon Chicago, Ill.
Mr. Henry Pollard Washington, D.C.
* Miss Theodate Pope Farmington, Ct.
and maid (_Emily Robinson_) London, Eng.
* Mr. Eugene H. Posen New York, N.Y.
Mr. George A. Powell Toronto, Ont.
* Mr. Norman A. Ratcliff England.
* Mr. Robert Rankin New York, N.Y.
* Mr. A.L. Rhys-Evans Cardiff, Wales.
Mr. Chas. E. Robinson Philadelphia, Pa.
Mrs. Robinson Philadelphia, Pa.
Mr. Frank A. Rogers Toronto, Canada.
@ Mrs. Rogers Toronto, Canada.
* Mr. Percy W. Rogers Toronto, Can.
Mr. Thos. W. Rumble Toronto, Canada.
Mrs. G. Sterling Ryerson Toronto, Canada.
* Miss Laura Ryerson Toronto, Canada.
Mr. Leo M. Schwabacher Baltimore, Md.
* Mr. August W. Schwarte New York, N.Y.
Mr. Max M. Schwarcz New York, N.Y.
Mr. A.J. Scott Manila, P.I.
@ Mr Percy W. Seccombe Peterboro, N.H.
Miss Elizabeth Seccombe Peterboro, N.H.
Mr. Victor E. Shields Cincinnati, Ohio.
Mrs. Shields Cincinnati, Ohio.
@ Mrs. R.D. Shymer New York, N.Y.
Mr. Jacobus Sigurd Sweden.
Mr. Thomas J. Silva Temple, Texas.
* Mr. Thomas Slidell New York, N.Y.
* Mrs. Jessie Taft Smith Braceville, O.
Mr. Henry B. Sonneborn Baltimore, Md.
@ Comd'r. J. Foster Stackhouse London, Eng.
@ Mrs. George W. Stephens Montreal, Can.
and maid (_Elise Oberlin_)
Master John H.C. Stephens Montreal, Can.
and nurse (_Carolina Milten_)
Mr. Duncan Stewart Montreal, Can.
Mr. Herbert S. Stone New York, N.Y.
@ Mr. Martin van Straaten London, Eng.
Mr. Julius Strauss Hamilton, Ont.
Mr. Alex. Stuart Glasgow, Scot.
* Mr. Charles F. Sturdy Montreal, Can.
* Mr. R.L. Taylor Montreal, Can.
Mr. F.B. Tesson Philadelphia, Pa.
Mrs. Tesson Philadelphia, Pa.
* Mr. D.A. Thomas Cardiff, Wales.
Mr. E. Blish Thompson Seymour, Indiana.
* Mrs. Thompson Seymour, Indiana.
@ Mr. Georges Tiberghien France.
* Mr. R.J. Timmis Gainesville, Texas.
* Mr. F.E.O. Tootal London, Eng.
* Mr. Ernest Townley Toronto, Canada.
@ Mr. Isaac F. Trumbull Bridgeport, Conn.
* Mr. Scott Turner Lansing, Mich.
* Mr. G.H. Turton Melbourne, Australia.
Mr. Alfred G. Vanderbilt New York, N.Y.
and valet (_Ronald Denyer_)
* Mr. W.A.F. Vassar London, Eng.
@ Mr. G.L.P. Vernon London, Eng.
* Mrs A.T. Wakefield Honolulu, Hawaii.
Mr. David Walker New York, N.Y.
Mrs. Wallace Watson Montreal, Can.
Mrs. Anthony Watson England.
@ Mrs. Catherine E. Willey Lake Forest, Ill.
Mr. Thomas H. Williams Liverpool, Eng.
Mr. Charles F. Williamson New York, N.Y.
Mr. Winter Liverpool, Eng.
* Mrs. A.S. Witherbee New York, N.Y.
Master A.S. Witherbee Jr. (_3 yrs._) New York, N.Y.
Mr. Lothrop Withington Boston, Mass.
Mr. Walter Wright Scotland.
@ Mr. Arthur John Wood England.
* Mr. Robt. C. Wright Cleveland, Ohio.
Mr. J.M. Young Hamilton, Ont.
Mrs. Young Hamilton, Ont.
* Mr. Philip J. Yung Antwerp, Belgium
Total number of Saloon Passengers 293
Survivors marked *
Identified Dead marked @
(This list, as corrected to May 22, 1915--the final revision--is a
facsimile of the broadside issued by the Cunard Company. It will be
noted that all of Paul Crompton's family perished, including himself,
his wife, and six children.)]
The characteristic courage of the Irish and British people was
manifested at the time of this terrible disaster, the Coroner continued,
and there was no panic. He charged that the responsibility "lay on the
German Government and the whole people of Germany, who collaborated in
the terrible crime."
"I propose to ask the jury," he continued, "to return the only verdict
possible for a self-respecting jury, that the men in charge of the
German submarine were guilty of willful murder."
The jury then retired and prepared their verdict.
Descriptions by Survivors
SUBMARINE CREW OBSERVED.
[By The Associated Press.]
LONDON, May 10.--The Fishguard correspondent of The Daily News quotes
the Rev. Mr. Guvier of the Church of England's Canadian Railway Mission,
a Lusitania survivor, as saying that when the ship sank a submarine rose
to the surface and came within 300 yards of the scene.
"The crew stood stolidly on the deck," he said, "and surveyed their
handiwork. I could distinguish the German flag, but it was impossible to
see the number of the submarine, which disappeared after a few minutes."
ERNEST COWPER'S ACCOUNT.
_QUEENSTOWN, Saturday, May 8, 3:18 A.M.--A sharp lookout for submarines
was kept aboard the Lusitania as she approached the Irish coast,
according to Ernest Cowper, a Toronto newspaper man, who was among the
survivors landed at Queenstown._
_He said that after the ship was torpedoed there was no panic among the
crew, but that they went about the work of getting passengers into the
boats in a prompt and efficient manner._
"As we neared the coast of Ireland," said Mr. Cowper, "we all joined in
the lookout, for a possible attack by a submarine was the sole topic of
conversation.
"I was chatting with a friend at the rail about 2 o'clock, when suddenly
I caught a glimpse of the conning tower of a submarine about a thousand
yards distant. I immediately called my friend's attention to it.
Immediately we both saw the track of a torpedo, followed almost
instantly by an explosion. Portions of splintered hull were sent flying
into the air, and then another torpedo struck. The ship began to list to
starboard.
"The crew at once proceeded to get the passengers into boats in an
orderly, prompt, and efficient manner. Miss Helen Smith appealed to me
to save her. I placed her in a boat and saw her safely away. I got into
one of the last boats to leave.
"Some of the boats could not be launched, as the vessel was sinking.
There was a large number of women and children in the second cabin.
Forty of the children were less than a year old."
From interviews with passengers it appears that when the torpedoes burst
they sent forth suffocating fumes, which had their effect on the
passengers, causing some of them to lose consciousness.
Two stokers, Byrne and Hussey of Liverpool, gave a few details. They
said the submarine gave no notice and fired two torpedoes, one hitting
No. 1 stoke hole and the second the engine room. The first torpedo was
discharged at 2 o'clock. In twenty-five minutes the great liner
disappeared.
The Cunard Line agent states that the total number of persons aboard the
Lusitania was 2,160.
MR. KESSLER'S DESCRIPTION.
[Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
_LONDON, Monday, May 10.--Survivors of the Lusitania arriving in London
yesterday from Queenstown told some of their tragic experiences to_ THE
NEW YORK TIMES _correspondent._
_They forcibly expressed the opinion that the Lusitania was badly
handled in being run into waters where it was known submarines were
waiting. Although not for a moment attempting to shift the blame from
the "murderous Germans" for the sinking of a ship full of innocent
passengers, they insisted that the officers of the steamship, knowing
that submarines were lurking off the Irish coast, ought to have taken a
different path to avoid all danger...._
_George A. Kessler of New York, in an interview, gave the following
description of the Lusitania sinking and of preliminary incidents
aboard:_
"On Wednesday I saw the crew taking tarpaulins from the boats, and I
went up to the Purser and said:
"'It's all right drilling your crew, but why don't you drill your
passengers?'
"The Purser said he thought it was a good idea, and added, 'Why not tell
Captain Turner, Sir?'
"The next day I had a conversation with the Captain, and to him
suggested that the passengers should receive tickets, each with a number
denoting the number of the boat he should make for in case anything
untoward happened. I added that this detail would minimize difficulties
in the event of trouble.
"The Captain replied that this suggestion was made after the disaster to
the Titanic. The Cunard people had thought it over and considered it
impracticable. He added that, of course, he could not act on the advice
given, because he should first have the authority of the Board of Trade.
"I talked with the Captain generally about the torpedo scare, which
neither of us regarded as of any moment. The Captain (you understand, of
course, that we were smoking and chatting) explained his plans to me. He
said that they were then slowing down, (in fact, we were going only
about eighteen knots,) and that the ship would be slowed down until they
got somewhere further on the voyage, and then they would go at all speed
and get over the war zone.
"I asked him what the war zone was, and he said 500 miles from
Liverpool.
"According to the next day's run, ending about two hours before the
mishap occurred, we were about 380 or 390 miles from Liverpool. So we
were in the war zone, and we were going only at a speed of eighteen
knots at the critical moment.
"For the two days previous, as well as I remember, the mileage was 506
and 501, and on Thursday the mileage was 488. On Friday I was playing
bridge when the pool was put up on the day's run and I heard twenty
numbers go from 480 to 499. I thought it would be a grand speculation to
buy the lowest number, as we were going so slow. I did buy it, and paid
$100. The amount in the pool was between $300 and $350, and when the
pool was declared, I was the winner.
"The steward offered to hand over the money if I would go to his cabin,
but I said that he could pay me later.
"Shortly after the steward had left me I was on the upper deck and
looking out to sea. I saw all at once the wash of a torpedo, indicated
by a snake-like churn of the surface of the water. It may have been
about thirty feet away. And then came a thud."
_Mr. Kessler told of the general rush for the deck and the second
explosion. Then he continued:_
"Mr. Berth and his wife, from New York, first-class passengers, were the
last ones I spoke to. I should say that all the passengers in the dining
saloon had come up on deck. The upper deck was crowded, and, of course,
the passengers were wondering what was the matter, few really believing
what it proved to be. Still they began to lower boats, and then things
began to happen very quickly.
"Mr. Berth was trying to persuade his wife to get into a boat. She said
she would not do so without him. He said, 'Oh, come along, my darling; I
will be all right,' and I added to his persuasions.
"I saw him help her into the boat with the ropes of the davits. I fell
into the same boat, and we were slipped down into the water over the
side of the liner, which was bulging out, the list being the other way.
The boat struck the water, and after some seconds (it may have been a
minute) I looked up and cried out, 'My God, the Lusitania is gone!'
"We saw the entire bulk, which had been almost upright just a few
seconds before, suddenly lurch over away from us. Then she seemed to
stand upright in the water, and the next instant the keel of the vessel
caught the keel of the boat in which we were floating, and we were
thrown into the water. There were only about thirty people in the boat,
and I should say that all were stokers or third-class passengers. There
may have been one or two first class; I cannot recall who they were.
"When the boat was overturned I sank fifteen or twenty feet. I thought I
was gone. However, I had my lifebelt around me, and managed to rise
again to the surface. There I floated for possibly ten or fifteen
minutes, when I saw and made a grab at a collapsible lifeboat at which
other passengers were also grabbing. We managed to get it shipshape and
clamber in. There were eight or nine in the boat, all stokers except one
or two third-class passengers.
"It was partly filled with water and in the scramble which occurred the
boat was overturned, and once more we were pitched into the water. This
occurred, I should say, eight times, the boat usually righting itself.
Before we were picked up by the Bluebell six of the party of eight or
nine were lying drowned in the bilge water which was in the bottom."
_When asked what he thought the effect of the sinking would be on the
United States, Mr. Kessler answered:_
"My God! what can America do? Nothing will bring back these people to
life.
"It was cold-blooded, deliberate murder, and nothing else--the greatest
murder the world has ever known. How will going to war mend that?"
_To the question whether the loss of the liner could have been avoided,
Mr. Kessler said slowly:_
"That is a very serious question, and I hesitate to give an opinion on
matters which are purely technical.
"Still, it seems to me as a landsman, and one who has crossed the ocean
a great many times, that the safety of the Lusitania lay in speed. We
were in the war zone by 140 or 150 miles, and every moment that we
dawdled at fifteen or eighteen knots was an increase of our risk of
being torpedoed.
"Again, (and of course I merely make the comment,) I cannot understand
why there were no destroyers or patrol boats about, as we certainly had
been led to expect there would be when we reached the war zone.
"The ship was torpedoed at 2:05 P.M. My watch stopped at 2:30. It was 5
o'clock when I was picked up by the Bluebell, and it was 10 o'clock
before we were landed in Queenstown."
CHARLES FROHMAN'S DEATH.
[Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
_LONDON, May 10.--A highly interesting story was told tonight by Rita
Jolivet, the actress, who stood calmly chatting with Charles Frohman and
Alfred G. Vanderbilt during the last tense moments before the Lusitania
sank. The three of them, together with G.L.S. Vernon, Miss Jolivet's
brother-in-law, and Mr. Scott, who had come all the way from Japan to
enlist, joined hands and stood waiting to face death together. Miss
Jolivet said:_
We stood talking about the Germans and the rumor which had gained
currency that a man, obviously of German origin, had been arrested for
tampering with the wireless. The story was that the man had been
discovered at 1 o'clock in the morning a day or two before doing
something to the wireless apparatus and had been immediately imprisoned.
I did not see the man arrested, so I am not sure about the story's
truth, but there were good grounds for believing it.
We determined not to enter the boats, and just a minute or two before
the end Mr. Frohman said with a smile: "Why fear death? It is the most
beautiful adventure that life gives us."
Mr. Scott fetched three lifebelts, one for Mr. Vanderbilt, one for Mr.
Frohman, and one for my brother-in-law. He said he was not going to wear
one himself, and my brother-in-law also refused to put his on. I hear
that Mr. Vanderbilt gave his to a lady, Mrs. Scott. I helped to put a
lifebelt on Mr. Frohman. My brother-in-law took hold of my hand and I
grasped the hand of Mr. Frohman, who, as you know, was lame. Mr. Scott
took hold of his other hand, and Mr. Vanderbilt joined the row, too. We
had made up our minds to die together.
Then Mr. Frohman, in a perfectly calm voice, said: "They've done for us;
we had better get out." He knew that his beautiful adventure was about
to begin. He had hardly spoken when, with a tremendous roar, a great
wave swept along the deck and we were all divided in a moment. I have
not seen any of those brave men alive since. Mr. Frohman, Mr.
Vanderbilt, and my brother-in-law were drowned. When Mr. Frohman's body
was recovered there was the most beautiful and peaceful smile upon his
lips.
VANDERBILT'S HEROIC END.
[Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
_LONDON, May 9.--Two survivors of the Lusitania disaster have given
testimony that Alfred G. Vanderbilt died heroically; that he went to
death to save the life of a woman._
_Thomas Slidell, a friend of Mr. Vanderbilt, who lives at the
Knickerbocker Club in New York, and was traveling with him, told of the
sacrifice first. Then tonight Norman Ratcliffe, who lives in Gillingham,
Kent, and was returning from Japan, offered verification. Mr. Ratcliffe
was rescued, after clinging to a box in the sea for three hours. With
him was a steward of the Lusitania. He said:_
This steward told me he had seen Mr. Vanderbilt on the Lusitania's deck,
shortly after the ship was struck, with a lifebelt about his body. When
the ship gave every indication that it would sink within a few minutes,
the steward said, Mr. Vanderbilt took off his lifebelt and gave it to a
woman who passed him on the deck, trembling with fear of the fate she
expected to meet. The steward said Mr. Vanderbilt turned back, as though
to look for another belt, and he saw him no more.
_Telling of his last moments on the ship and his last sight of Mr.
Vanderbilt, Mr. Slidell said:_
I saw Alfred G. Vanderbilt only a few minutes before I left the ship. He
was standing with a lifebelt in his hand. A woman came up to him, and I
saw him place the belt around the woman. He had none for himself, and I
know that he could not swim.
Only the day before we had been talking of a day and a dawn some years
ago when we went down the bay at New York in his yacht and waited to
welcome and dip our flag to the Lusitania on her maiden voyage. We saw
the first and last of her. Vanderbilt, who had given largely to the Red
Cross, was returning to England in order to offer a fleet of wagons and
himself as driver to the Red Cross Society, for he said he felt every
day that he was not doing enough.
KLEIN AND HUBBARD LOST.
_Oliver O. Bernard, scenic artist of Covent Garden, said:_
Only one or two of the shining marks which disasters at sea seem
invariably to involve have lived to tell the Lusitania's tale.
Vanderbilt, the sportsman, is gone. Genial Charles Klein, the
playwright, is gone. That erratic American literary genius, Elbert
Hubbard, is gone, and with him a wife to whom he seemed particularly
devoted. And Charles Frohman is gone.
Frohman's was the only body I could recognize in the Queenstown
mortuary, and perhaps it will interest his many friends in London and
New York to know that the famous manager's face in death gives
uncommonly convincing evidence that he died without a struggle. It wears
a serenely peaceful look.
Frohman must have found it more difficult for him to take his place in a
lifeboat than any other man on the ship. He was quite lame, and hobbled
about on deck laboriously with a heavy cane. He seldom came to the
general dining saloon, either out of sensitiveness or because of
distress caused by his leg.
I last saw Alfred G. Vanderbilt standing at the port entrance to the
grand saloon. He stood there the personification of sportsmanlike
coolness. In his right hand was grasped what looked to me like a large
purple leather jewel case. It may have belonged to Lady Mackworth, as
Mr. Vanderbilt had been much in company of the Thomas party during the
trip, and evidently had volunteered to do Lady Mackworth the service of
saving her gems for her. Mr. Vanderbilt was absolutely unperturbed. In
my eyes, he was the figure of a gentleman waiting unconcernedly for a
train. He had on a dark striped suit, and was without cap or other head
covering.
Germany Justifies the Deed
[It should be borne in mind that the subjoined official and
semi-official out-givings on behalf of Germany, announcing the
destruction of the Lusitania, justifying it, striving to implicate the
British Government, and to some extent modifying the original war zone
proclamation of Feb. 18, 1915, were published prior to the receipt by
the German Imperial Government of President Wilson's note of May 13.
British official rejoinders and a statement by the Collector of the Port
of New York are included under this head.--Editor.]
GERMAN OFFICIAL REPORT.
_BERLIN, May 8, (via wireless to London Sunday, May 9.)--The following
official communication was issued tonight:_
The Cunard liner Lusitania was yesterday torpedoed by a German submarine
and sank.
The Lusitania was naturally armed with guns, as were recently most of
the English mercantile steamers. Moreover, as is well known here, she
had large quantities of war material in her cargo.
Her owners, therefore, knew to what danger the passengers were exposed.
They alone bear all the responsibility for what has happened.
Germany, on her part, left nothing undone to repeatedly and strongly
warn them. The Imperial Ambassador in Washington even went so far as to
make a public warning, so as to draw attention to this danger. The
English press sneered at the warning and relied on the protection of the
British fleet to safeguard Atlantic traffic.
BRITAIN'S DENIAL.
_LONDON, May 8.--The British Government today made the following
announcement:_
The statement appearing in some newspapers that the Lusitania was armed
is wholly false.
COLLECTOR MALONE'S DENIAL.
_In_ THE NEW YORK TIMES _of May 9, 1915, the following report appeared:_
Dudley Field Malone, Collector of the Port, gave an official denial
yesterday to the German charge that the Lusitania had guns mounted when
the left this port on Saturday, May 1. He said:
"This report is not correct. The Lusitania was inspected before sailing,
as is customary.
"No guns were found, mounted or unmounted, and the vessel sailed without
any armament. No merchant ship would be allowed to arm in this port and
leave the harbor."
This statement was given out by the Collector yesterday morning at his
home, 270 Riverside Drive.
Herman Winter, Assistant Manager of the Cunard Line, 22 State Street,
who was on the Lusitania for three hours before she sailed for
Liverpool, denied the report that she ever carried any guns.
"It is true," Mr. Winter said, "that she had aboard 4,200 cases of
cartridges, but they were cartridges for small arms, packed in separate
cases, and could not have injured the vessel by exploding. They
certainly do not come under the classification of ammunition. The United
States authorities would not permit us to carry ammunition, classified
as such by the military authorities, on a passenger liner. For years we
have been sending small-arms cartridges abroad on the Lusitania."
[Illustration: SIR ROBERT BORDEN, K.C.M.G.
Prime Minister of Canada]
[Illustration: H.R.H. FIELD MARSHAL THE DUKE OF CONNAUGHT
Uncle of George V. and Governor General of Canada
_(Photo from P.S. Rogers.)_]
"The Lusitania had 1,250 steel shrapnel cases, but they were empty.
There was no explosive of any sort aboard. As to the report that the
Lusitania had guns aboard, I cannot assert too strongly that it is
positively untrue. There were no guns whatever aboard. The Lusitania was
an unarmed passenger steamer. Furthermore she never has been armed, and
never carried an unmounted gun or rifle out of port in times of war or
peace."
"Then you unqualifiedly declare that the Lusitania was not armed against
submarines?" he was asked.
"The ship," Mr Winter replied, "was as defenseless against undersea and
underhanded attack as a Hoboken ferryboat in the North River would be
against one of the United States battleships."
Captain D.J. Roberts, Marine Superintendent of the Cunard Line, said
yesterday that he was prepared to testify under oath in any court and
from his personal knowledge that the Lusitania did not carry any guns
when she sailed from New York at 12:28 P.M. on May 1 for Liverpool.
"It is my invariable custom to go through the passenger ships every day
they are in port," he said, "and I made my last inspection of the
Lusitania on sailing day at 7 A.M. There were no guns or plates or
mountings where guns could be fitted on the Lusitania, nor have there
been since she has been in the service. The ship has never carried
troops or been chartered by the British Government for any purpose
whatsoever.
"In order that there should be no mistake about the ensigns flown by
British merchant vessels, the Admiralty ordered after war had been
declared that only the red ensign, a square red flag with the union jack
in the corner, should be shown at the stern of a merchantman, and the
white St. George's ensign by all war vessels, whether armored or
unarmored. These are the only two flags that are hoisted on British
ships today, with the exception of the company's house flag, when they
are entering port or passing at sea, and the mail flag on the foremast,
which every steamship flies coming in to denote that she has mails on
board.
"Before the war both the Lusitania and the Mauretania flew the blue
ensign of the Royal Naval Reserve, which any British merchant vessel is
allowed to do if her commander and officers and two-thirds of the crew
belong to the reserve."
NEUTRALS IN THE WAR ZONE.
[German Foreign Office Note.]
[Special to The New York Times.]
_WASHINGTON, May 11.--Secretary Bryan received from Ambassador Gerard at
Berlin today the text of an official declaration by the German
Government of its policy with respect to American and other neutral
ships meeting German submarines in the naval war zone around the British
Isles and in the North Sea. This declaration was handed to Mr. Gerard by
the German Foreign Office which explained that it was being issued as a
"circular statement" in regard to "mistaken attacks by German submarines
on commerce vessels of neutral nations."_
First--The Imperial German Government has naturally no intention of
causing to be attacked by submarines or aircraft such neutral ships of
commerce in the zone of naval warfare, more definitely described in the
notice of the German Admiralty staff of Feb. 4 last, as have been guilty
of no hostile act. On the contrary, the most definite instructions have
repeatedly been issued to German war vessels to avoid attacks on such
ships under all circumstances. Even when such ships have contraband of
war on board they are dealt with by submarines solely according to the
rules of international law applying to prize warfare.
Second--Should a neutral ship nevertheless come to harm through German
submarines or aircraft on account of an unfortunate (X) [mistake?] in
the above-mentioned zone of naval warfare, the German Government will
unreservedly recognize its responsibility therefor. In such a case it
will express its regrets and afford damages without first instituting a
prize court action.
Third--It is the custom of the German Government as soon as the sinking
of a neutral ship in the above-mentioned zone of naval warfare is
ascribed to German war vessels to institute an immediate investigation
into the cause. If grounds appear thereby to be given for association of
such a hypothesis the German Navy places itself in communication with
the interested neutral Government so that the latter may also institute
an investigation. If the German Government is thereby convinced that the
ship has been destroyed by Germany's war vessels, it will not delay in
carrying out the provisions of Paragraph 2 above. In case the German
Government, contrary to the viewpoint of the neutral Government is not
convinced by the result of the investigation, the German Government has
already on several occasions declared itself ready to allow the question
to be decided by an international investigation commission, according to
Chapter 3 of The Hague Convention of Oct. 18, 1907, for the peaceful
solution of international disputes.
_This circular is understood to have been rather reassuring to high
officials of the United States Government, although it does not cover
the attitude of the German Government toward the treatment to be
accorded to Americans and other neutral noncombatants, men, women, and
children, on board vessels flying the flag of England, France, or
Russia. The absence of any allusion to the principle involved in the
Lusitania case is believed here to mean that the statement was prepared
and was ready for promulgation before the destruction of the Lusitania
on Friday. Several days usually have been required for messages to come
to Washington from Ambassador Gerard, by roundabout cable relay route,
and it is believed that this dispatch is no exception in this respect._
DR. DERNBURG'S DEFENSE.
_The sinking of the Lusitania as a man-of-war was justified by Dr.
Bernhard Dernburg, late German Colonial Secretary and recognized as
quasi-official spokesman of the German Imperial Government in the United
States, in a statement issued in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 8, 1915. The
statement reads:_
Great Britain declared the North Sea a war zone in the Winter. No
protest was made by the United States or any neutral. Great Britain held
up all neutral ships carrying non-contraband goods, detaining them,
buying or confiscating their cargoes.
Great Britain constantly changed the contraband lists, so no foodstuffs
of any kind have actually reached Germany since the war began.
International law says foodstuffs destined for the civil population must
pass. It does not recognize any right to starve out a whole people.
As a consequence, and in retaliation, Germany declared the waters around
England a war zone, and started a submarine warfare. It became known in
February that British ships were flying the American flag as a
protection.
Great Britain replied by officially declaring its purpose to starve
120,000,000 Germans and Austrians. The United States very thoughtfully
tried to mediate, proposing that foodstuffs should be passed and
submarine warfare be stopped.
Germany agreed; England turned the proposal down. Then, in order to
protect American passengers, they were warned by public advertisement of
the danger of sailing under the flag of a belligerent.
Vessels carrying contraband of war are liable to destruction unless they
can be taken to a port of the country that captures them. The right of
search need not be exercised if it is certain such ships carry
contraband.
Oil is contraband, like war ammunition and all metals. The master of the
Gulflight (an American oil tank steamer sunk recently) swore before
customs officials to his cargo of oil for France.
The master of the Lusitania similarly swore to his manifest of cargo of
metals and ammunition. Both the Gulflight and the Lusitania carried
contraband when attacked, it is obvious.
The Lusitania's manifest showed she carried for Liverpool 260,000 pounds
of brass; 60,000 pounds of copper; 189 cases of military goods; 1,271
cases of ammunition, and for London, 4,200 cases of cartridges.
Vessels of that kind can be seized and be destroyed under The Hague
rules without any respect to a war zone. The Lusitania was a British
auxiliary cruiser, a man-of-war. On the same day she sailed the
Cameronia, another Cunarder, was commandeered in New York Harbor for
military service.
The fact is that the Lusitania was a British war vessel under orders of
the Admiralty to carry a cargo of contraband of war. The passengers had
had full warning, first by the German note to England in February,
second by advertisement.
Germany wants to do anything reasonable so as not to make the United
States or its citizens suffer in any way. But she cannot do so unless
Americans will take necessary precautions to protect themselves from
dangers of which they are cognizant.
What Germany has done, she has done by way of retaliation after her
offer through President Wilson, regarding submarine warfare, was turned
down and after Britain declared the war was directed toward the
120,000,000 innocent noncombatants, women and children.
Americans can do their own thinking when the facts are laid before them.
I have really no authority to speak. But my mission in the United
States is to inform your people of the German attitude. The German
Ambassador, Count von Bernstorff, can speak only in official phrases. I
talk straight out, bluntly.
_Dr. Dernburg put much stress on the fact that the Cunard Line officials
did not warn American passengers that the ship carried a large store of
ammunition and other contraband of war. He continued:_
Did they issue a warning? I would like an answer. If that warning was
not given, American passengers were being used as a cloak for England's
war shipments.
It is not reasonable that such a vessel could not be sunk because there
were American passengers on board. They had been warned by Germany of
the danger.
England could hire one American to travel to and fro on each of her
ships, carry on shipments of arms, and place her men-of-war anywhere, if
American passengers can be used as shields.
_Asked whether he expected action by the United States because of the
Lusitania's sinking, Dr. Dernburg said:_
That is a question I cannot discuss. I can only say that any ship flying
the American flag and not carrying contraband of war is and will be as
safe as a cradle. But any other ship, not so exempt, is as unsafe as a
volcano--or as was the Lusitania.
_When he was told that the Transylvania, another Cunard liner, sailed
from New York on May 7, to cover the same route as the Lusitania, Dr.
Dernburg said:_
I can only say that the German warnings will reappear henceforth by
advertisement. That is significant.
German Press Opinion
_Contrasting with the attitude of the German-American press since the
issuance of President Wilson's note of May 13 to the German Imperial
Government, the comment of the press in Germany has been in accordance
with the German official statements put forth prior to the receipt of
the American note. Under date of May 9, 1915, the following dispatch by
The Associated Press was received from Berlin:_
_Commenting on the destruction Lusitania, the Berliner Tageblatt says:_
With deep emotion we learn of the destruction of the Lusitania, in
which countless men lost their lives. We lament with sincere hearts
their hard fate, but we know we are completely devoid of blame.
We may be sure that through the English telegrams communicated to the
world indignation will again be raised against Germany, but we must hope
that calm reflection will later pronounce the verdict of condemnation
against the British Admiralty.
The many who are now sorrowing may raise complaint against Winston
Spencer Churchill, First Lord of the British Admiralty, who, by
conscienceless instructions which must bring him the curse of mankind,
conjured up this cruel warfare....
The Lusitania was a warship on the list of English auxiliary cruisers
and carried armament of twelve strongly mounted guns. She was more
strongly mounted with guns than any German armored cruiser. As an
auxiliary cruiser she must have been prepared for attack.
_Count von Reventlow, the naval expert, says, in the Tages Zeitung:_
The American Government probably will make the case the basis for
diplomatic action, but it could have prevented the loss of American
lives by appropriate instructions. It is the American Government's
fault, therefore, if it did not take Germany's war zone declarations
seriously enough.
_The writer declares, further, that Germany had full and trustworthy
information that the Lusitania carried a cargo of war material, as she
had on previous trips._
_The Lokal Anzeiger also assumes that the steamship was carrying
munitions of war, and maintains that this and "the fact that she was a
fully armed cruiser completely justifies her destruction under the laws
of warfare."_
_The Kreuz Zeitung, after referring to the warning issued by Ambassador
von Bernstorff, adds:_
If citizens of neutral States were lost with the sunken ship they must
bear the full blame.
_Some papers further testify the sinking of the steamer because on a
previous occasion she had resorted to the expedient of flying the
American flag. Germania, the clerical organ, deprecates probable
attempts by Germany's antagonists to make moral capital against her out
of the sinking of the Lusitania and the loss of life. The paper says:_
We can look forward to such efforts with a clear conscience, for we have
proceeded correctly. We can only answer to those who place their
sympathies above justice, that war is war.
_An editorial article in the Frankfurter Zeitung was quoted in an
Amsterdam dispatch to The London Times of May 10, as follows:_
The Lusitania has been sent to the bottom. That is the announcement
which must arouse measureless horror among many thousands.
A giant ship of the British merchant fleet, a vessel of over 31,000
tons, one of the most famous of the fast steamers of the
British-American passenger service, a ship full of people, who had
little or nothing to do with the war, has been attacked and sunk by a
German torpedo. This is the announcement which in a few words indicates
a mighty catastrophe to a ship with 2,000 people aboard.
We always feel that it is tragic and all too hard when war inflicts
wounds on those who do not carry its weapons.
We lament similarly the fate of the unfortunate villages and towns where
war rages and the innocent victims of bombs who, far behind the
trenches, and often without our being able to estimate the meaning of
this murder, are snatched from the ranks of the unarmed.
Much more terrible is the fate of those who on the high sea, many
hundreds in number, suddenly see death before their eyes.
A German war vessel has sunk the ship. It has done its duty.
For the German Navy the sinking of the Lusitania means an extraordinary
success. Its destruction demolished the last fable with which the people
of England consoled themselves; on which hostile shipping relied when it
dared to defy the German warnings.
We do not need to seek grounds to justify the destruction of a British
ship. She belonged to the enemy and brought us harm. She has fallen to
our shots.
The enemy and the whole world were warned that he who ventured to trust
himself within her staked his life.
_The London Daily Mail of May 16 quotes from Der Tag the following
article by Herr von Rath, who is described as a favorite spokesman in
the Wilhelmstrasse:_
President Wilson is very much troubled by the drowning of so many
American citizens, and we Germans sincerely share his feelings, but we
see in the Lusitania affair one of the many cruel necessities which the
struggle for existence brings with it.
If, as English reports try to make us believe, Mr. Wilson is now
meditating revenge, we will not disturb him in this occupation, but
would only hope that his demands will be addressed to the right and not
the wrong quarters.
The right address is England. On the German side, everything was done to
warn American travelers from the impending peril, while British
irresponsibility and arrogance nullified the effect of the German
admonition.
Mr. Wilson is certainly in a precarious position. After showing himself
so weak in the face of the long and ruthless British provocations, he
has to play the strong man with Germany. Otherwise he will lose what
prestige he has left, and he knows that in the background the pretender
to the throne, Mr. Roosevelt, is lurking.
But what are the gallant shouters in the United States thinking about?
Should the United States send troops to take part in the fighting in
Flanders? The gigantic losses of their Canadian neighbors should not
exactly encourage them, from a military standpoint. Moreover the United
States are so weak that they have never even been able to impose their
will on Mexico or to do anything to the still more unpleasant Japanese
than to clench their fists in their pockets.
Should their superdreadnoughts cross the Atlantic Ocean? England has
not even useful work for her own ironclads in this war. What would
American warships do?
How about our Germanic brethren in the United States--the half million
German and Austro-Hungarian reservists who are not permitted to take
part in the defense of their home lands? Will they stand with folded
arms and see their fatherlands attacked?
What the United States has already done to support our enemies is, apart
from interference with private property, the worst which she could do to
us. We have nothing more to expect or to fear. Therefore, the threats of
our erstwhile friend Roosevelt leave us quite cold.
Let the United States also preserve up from warmed-up humanitarian
platitudes, for her craven submission to England's will is promoting an
outrageous scheme to deliver Germany's women and children to death by
starvation.
_A wireless dispatch from Berlin to Sayville, L.I., on May 16 reported
this outgiving by the Overseas News Agency:_
The whole German press, particularly the Cologne Gazette, the Frankfort
Gazette and the Berliner Tageblatt, deeply regret the loss of American
lives caused by the sinking of the Lusitania.
The Tages Zeitung and other newspapers state that the responsibility
rests with the British Government, which, attempting to starve the
peaceful civilian population of a big country, forced Germany in
self-defense to declare British waters a war zone; with shipowners, who
allowed passengers to embark on an armed steamer carrying war material,
and neglected German warnings against entering the war zone, and,
finally, with the English press.
Heartfelt sympathy is expressed by the German press and public for the
victims of the catastrophe and their relatives.
_From The Hague, via London, on May 19 a special cable to_ THE NEW YORK
TIMES _reported that, acting apparently under official instructions,
several leading German newspapers had on that day joined in a fierce
attack on the United States, making a concerted demand that Germany
refuse to yield to the American protest._
_Practically all these newspapers repeat the same arguments, declaring
that neutrals entering the war zone do so at their own risk, and that
the Americans aboard the Lusitania "were shielding contraband goods with
their persons." The Berliner Tageblatt said:_
The demand of the Washington Government must be rejected. Indeed, the
whole note hardly merits serious consideration. Its "firm tone" is only
a cloak to hide America's consciousness of her own culpability. If
American citizens, in spite of the warnings of the German Admiralty,
intrusted themselves on the Lusitania, the blame for the consequences
falls on themselves and their Government.
Can the United States affirm that there were no munitions aboard? If
not, it has not the shadow of a right to protest.
GERMAN-AMERICAN PRESS COMMENTS.
_Under the heading "The President's Note," Herman Ridder, editor of the
New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, one of the leading German-American
newspapers, said in that publication on May 15:_
The attitude assumed by the President, in the note delivered yesterday
to the German Government, toward the infringement of our rights on the
seas is diplomatically correct and must compel the support of the entire
American people.
We have suffered grievously at the hands of more than one of the
belligerent nations, but for the moment we are dealing only with
Germany. The note recites a series of events which the Government of the
United States could not silently pass by, and demands reparation for
American lives lost and American property already destroyed and a
guarantee that the rights of the United States and its citizens shall be
observed in the future. All this the German Government may well grant,
frankly and unreservedly and without loss of honor or prestige. It
would be incomprehensible if it did not do so.
The note admits, as most diplomatic documents do, of two
interpretations. They will be applied to it variously, as the reader is
inclined to pessimism or to optimism. It is a document in which lies the
choice of war or peace evenly balanced. I prefer to read into it all the
optimism which can be derived from the knowledge that two nations,
historically like-minded and bound to one another by strong ties of
friendship, seldom go to war over matters which can be settled without
resort to the arbitrament of arms. There is no question outstanding
today between the United States and Germany which cannot be settled
through diplomatic channels. I am inclined all the more to this optimism
by the temperament and character of the President of the United for the
time being.
I see in the note great possibilities for good. The undersea activities
of the German Navy in their effect upon the rights of the United States
and its citizens form, properly, the burden of its argument. We are
addressing Germany, and it is only over her submarine policy that our
interests have clashed with hers. The note takes cognizance, however, of
the inter-relation of Germany's submarine policy and the British policy
of "starving out Germany." The President has opened an avenue to the
full discussion of the rights and obligations of submarines in naval
warfare, and when Germany has stated her case it is not only not
impossible but it is highly probable that he will be asked to suggest a
modus vivendi by which the objectionable features of both these policies
may be removed.
The situation is basically triangular and it is difficult to see how the
settlement of our difficulties with Germany can escape involving at the
same time the rectification of Great Britain's methods of dealing with
the trade between neutral countries and her adversaries. It is but a
step from the position of mediator in a question of this sort to that of
mediator in the larger questions which make for war or peace. I believe
that the note contains the hopeful sign that these things may come to
pass.
The possibilities are there and the President, I am confident, will
overlook no possibility of advancing the cause of an early return of
peace to Europe nor leave any unturned stone to free this country of the
dangers and inconveniences which have become the concomitants of the
European struggle. Out of the troubled waters of our present relations
with Germany may thus come a great and, we may hope, a lasting good.
Should this happily be the case, the wisdom of the President will have
been confirmed and the thankfulness of the nation secured to him. On the
other hand, should his pacific hand be forced by those who wax fat and
wealthy on strife and the end should be disaster untold to the country,
he will still have the consolation of having fought a good battle and of
knowing that he was worsted only by the irresistible force of demagogy
in this country or abroad.
The subject with which the note deals is one of the same paramount
importance to Germany as it is to this country, and we must wait in
patience for Germany's reply; and I, for one, shall wait in the
confidence that when it is received it will be found to offer a basis
for a friendly solution of the questions which exist between Germany and
the United States and, not unlikely, for those further steps which I
have intimated.
_Under the caption "A Word of Earnest Advice," the evening edition of
the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung on May 14 issued the following warning to
Germans and German-Americans:_
The times are grave--even very grave.... A conflict between America and
the old Fatherland is threatening. Such a conflict must rend the heart
of every German-American who has acquired the rights of citizenship
here, who has founded a new career for himself and brought up his
children.
It is probably unnecessary to give any advice to the American citizens
among our readers in regard to their conduct in this grave time. A
series of years must pass before an immigrant can obtain his
citizenship papers; nobody is forced to become a citizen. Of the man who
has voluntarily become a citizen of the United States we may therefore
expect that he knows the conditions here obtaining the institutions of
the country of his adoption, as well as his rights and duties. But there
are thousands upon thousands of our readers who are not citizens, and to
them a serious word of advice shall now be addressed. In the grave time
of the conflict let efforts be made to avoid every personal conflict. It
is not necessarily cowardly to deny one's descent, but it is not
necessary, either, to make demonstrations.
Where there is life there is hope. The hope still is entertained that
the conflict will be eliminated, that the bond of friendship between
Germany and America will not be torn. Through thoughtless Hotspurs, who
allow themselves to be carried away by excitement and do not dam up the
flood of their eloquence, much mischief can be done. Keeping away from
the public places where the excited groups congregate and discuss the
burning questions of the day must be urgently recommended. It was for
many a sport to participate in these discussions, and with more or less
skill, but always energetically to champion the German cause.
The American is in general very liberal in regard to expression of
opinion. He likes to hear also the "other side," but it must not be
forgotten that in times of conflict the "other side" may be regarded as
the "enemy side." What has heretofore sounded harmless may now be
interpreted as a criticism made against the United States. But the
American as a rule repels a criticism made by strangers against the
affairs of his own country. Through heated discussions and unwise
demonstrations nothing is at present to be achieved but much can be
spoiled.
Grave times!
Calmness is now the first duty of citizenship--for all non-citizens.
But whoever is a citizen--he would be doing well in any event to stay
away from the streets and squares where the noisy ones congregate.
There are very many Germans whose motto here, too, is: "We Germans fear
God and nothing else in the world." But whoever bellows that into the
ears of hundreds of persons of hostile mind in the public market place
is either a fool or--weary of life.
In submarine warfare the Germans may be superior to the British, but in
undermining the latter are superior to the former. They have now
succeeded in undermining the friendship between Uncle Sam and the
Deutsche Michel. Let us hope that the fuse can be extinguished before
the explosion follows.
_Charles Neumeyer, editor of The Louisville (Ky.) Anzeiger, in a
dispatch on May 14 to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES, _said of President Wilson's
note:_
The American note to Berlin evidences the desire of the President to
hold Germany to strict accountability for the loss of American lives in
the Lusitania disaster. This proceeding on the part of the American
Government is eminently just and proper. If the President had failed to
hold Germany to strict accountability he would have failed of his
official duty. The President's forceful action cannot be but of salutary
effect in this country also. It gives the American people the assurance
that the Government at Washington is prepared and ready for the
protection of American citizens wherever they may chance to be.
There was a time when the Government did not resort to very vigorous
measures in this respect. American citizens while traveling abroad were
frequently subject to insult and violence, and the authorities at
Washington seemingly paid little heed to complaints. The result was that
the American citizen abroad was not held in that respect which emanates
from the knowledge that his home Government is prepared to go to the
length of its ability, if necessary, to accord him protection.
One or two of the demands formulated against Germany do not meet with
our approval. The President demands a cessation of German submarine
warfare on merchant vessels, but while the interruption of the
starvation plan adopted by England against the civil population is urged
upon the latter it will continue. The starvation plan is primarily being
waged against the weak and helpless, and is, therefore, responsible. It
is also in violation of the spirit if not the letter of international
law. If the President can force a demand for the cessation of the
submarine warfare, he ought also to have the right to demand the lifting
of the starvation blockade. The tragedy was chiefly due to either
stupidity or design on the part of the British Admiralty in failing to
afford proper protection to the ship. While we do not agree with the
President on some points in his note, we repose the fullest confidence
in his patriotism as well as his deliberate judgment as giving assurance
that, whatever the outcome, the case of the American people rests in
trustworthy hands.
The people should by their action spare him unnecessary embarrassment
and rely for a satisfactory solution of the grave questions confronting
us on his patriotism and honesty.
_A dispatch on May 14 to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES _from Max Burgheim, editor
of the Freie Presse of Cincinnati, Ohio, reads:_
The part of the note referring to the Lusitania catastrophe had better
been directed to London. England, not Germany, is responsible for the
destruction of the Lusitania. England, through the violation of the
rights of nations and the brutal threat to starve 70,000,000 Germans,
has forced Germany to a policy against English commerce of which the
Lusitania was a victim. Germany declared to our President her
willingness to stop submarine warfare if England would allow the
importation of food for the German civil population. England
contemptuously cast aside the President's mediation.
It has not yet been proved that submarine warfare is not in keeping with
international law. Distinguished authorities on international law have
declared that Germany was not only justified but bound to adopt this
method in the hour of need, because it is the only effective defense
against England's warfare. Germany cannot cease this warfare unless she
wishes to surrender with tied hands to a ruthless enemy. All we can
justly ask of Germany is that neutral ships be not attacked, and that
damages be paid in case of loss through mistakes. Germany has already
agreed to this.
Falaba, Cushing, Gulflight
CASE OF THE FALABA.
_A Washington dispatch to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES _on March 31, 1915,
reported that the records of the State Department's Passport Bureau show
that a passport was issued on June 1, 1911, to Leon Chester Thrasher, a
passenger aboard the British African steamship Falaba, which was
torpedoed by a German submarine in the "zone of naval warfare" on March
28. The American citizenship of Thrasher, who was drowned, has been
established._
[Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
LONDON, Wednesday, March 31.--An American citizen, Leon Chester
Thrasher, an engineer, was among the victims of the German submarine
that sank the British steamer Falaba in St. George's Channel last Sunday
with a loss of 111 lives. Mr. Thrasher's name is included in the
official list of the missing. For the last year he had been employed on
the Gold Coast, British West Africa, and it is presumed he was returning
to his post when he met his death at the hands of the German sea
raiders.
The Daily Mail says Mr. Thrasher was bound for Secondee, West Africa.
Reference to the form which has to be filled out to satisfy the Board of
Trade and customs requirements by every passenger embarking at a British
port before tickets will be issued shows that Mr. Thrasher was a citizen
of the United States. Here are the particulars:
Name, Leon Chester Thrasher; age, last birthday, 31; single; sex, male;
profession, engineer; country of residence for last twelve months, Gold
Coast Colony, West Africa; country of intended residence for next twelve
months, the same; country of which citizen or subject, United States of
America; present address, 29 Cartwright Gardens, St. Pancras, W.C.
When Mr. Thrasher went on board the Falaba he produced an American
passport.
_The British Official Press Bureau on April 8 issued the following
report on the destruction of the Falaba:_
It is not true that sufficient time was given the passengers and the
crew of this vessel to escape. The German submarine closed in on the
Falaba, ascertained her name, signaled her to stop, and gave those on
board five minutes to take to the boats. It would have been nothing
short of a miracle if all the passengers and crew of a big liner had
been able to take to their boats within the time allotted.
While some of the boats were still on their davits the submarine fired a
torpedo at short range. This action made it absolutely certain that
there must be great loss of life and it must have been committed
knowingly with the intention of producing that result.
The conduct of all on board the Falaba appears to have been excellent.
There was no avoidable delay in getting out the boats. To accuse the
Falaba's crew of negligence under the circumstances could not easily be
paralleled.
THE GERMAN DEFENSE.
[By The Associated Press.]
_BERLIN, April 13, (via Amsterdam to London, April 14.)--A semi-official
account of the sinking of the British steamer Falaba by a German
submarine on March 28 was made public here today. It follows:_
On receiving the signal "Stop, or I fire," the Falaba steamed off and
sent up rocket signals to summon help, and was only brought to a
standstill after a chase of a quarter of an hour.
Despite the danger of an attack from the steamer or from other vessels
hurrying up, the submarine did not immediately fire, but signaled that
the steamer must be abandoned within ten minutes. The men of the Falaba
quickly entered the boats, although the launching took place in an
unseamanlike manner. They failed to give assistance, which was possible,
to passengers struggling in the water.
From the time of the order to leave the ship until the torpedo was
discharged not ten but twenty-three minutes elapsed, prior to which
occurred the chase of the steamer, during which period time might have
been used to get the boats ready.
The torpedo was fired only when the approach of suspicious-looking
vessels, from which an attack was to be expected, compelled the
commander of the submarine to take quick action. When the torpedo was
discharged nobody was seen on board the ship except the Captain, who
bravely stuck to his post.
Afterward some persons became visible who were busy about a boat.
Of the crew of the submarine, the only ones on deck were those serving
the cannon or those necessary for signaling. It was impossible for them
to engage in rescue work, because the submarine could not take on
passengers.
Every word is superfluous in defending our men against malignant
accusations. At the judicial proceedings in England no witness dared
raise accusations. It is untrue that at any time the submarine displayed
the English flag. The submarine throughout the affair showed as much
consideration for the Falaba as was compatible with safety.
COMMANDER SCHMITZ'S STORY.
[From The New York Times, May 6, 1915.]
_J.J. Ryan, the American cotton broker who went to Germany on March 30
and sold 28,000 bales of cotton he had shipped to Bremen and Hamburg,
returned yesterday on the Cunard liner Carpathia very well satisfied
with the results of his trip. He said:_
While I was in Bremen I met Commander Schmitz of the German submarine
U-28, which sank the British African liner Falaba off the English coast
on March 28. He told me that he regretted having been compelled to
torpedo the vessel, as she had passengers on board. In explanation, he
said:
"I warned the Captain of the Falaba to dismantle his wireless apparatus
and gave him ten minutes in which to do it and get his passengers off.
Instead of acting upon my demand he continued to send messages out to
torpedo destroyers that were less than twenty miles away, to come as
quickly as possible to his assistance.
"At the expiration of the ten minutes I gave him a second warning about
dismantling his wireless apparatus and waited twenty minutes, and then I
torpedoed the ship, as the destroyers were getting close up and I knew
they would go to the rescue of the passengers and crew."
I mentioned the fact to the commander that it had been reported by some
of the survivors of the liner that while the men and women were
struggling for their lives in the icy water his crew were standing on
the deck of the submarine laughing. He looked very gravely at me and
replied, "That is not true, and is most cruelly unjust to my men. They
were crying, not laughing, when the boats were capsized and threw the
people into the water."
CASE OF THE CUSHING.
[Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
_WASHINGTON, May 1.--Secretary Bryan today received from American
Minister Henry van Dyke at The Hague a report on the attack by German
aviators on the American steamship Cushing and said tonight that this
report would be immediately cabled to Ambassador Gerard at Berlin for
his information. Ambassador Gerard will bring the matter to the
attention of the German Government. The report from Minister van Dyke
was very brief, and read as follows:_
The American Consul at Rotterdam reports that the American steamship
Cushing, Captain Herland, with petroleum from New York to Rotterdam,
flying the American flag, was attacked by German aeroplanes near the
North Hinder Lightship, afternoon April 29. Three bombs dropped, one
struck ship, causing damage, but no life lost.
_The report of Captain Lars Larsen Herland, master of the American tank
steamer Cushing, made upon his arrival in Philadelphia, Penn., on May
19, 1915, is as follows:_
The airmen swept in narrow circles over the tanker, trying to get
directly over the funnel, with the idea, apparently, of dropping a bomb
into it and wrecking the engine room.
When attacked the Cushing was about twenty-five miles from Antwerp and
eight miles from the North Hinder Lightship. It was near 7 o'clock in
the evening, but the sun had barely touched the horizon, and there was
ample light for the pilot of the biplane to see the words, "Cushing, New
York, United States of America," painted on each side of the vessel in
letters eight feet high, and to note the Stars and Stripes at the
masthead and the taffrail.
When the airship was first noted it was several thousand feet in the
air, but dropped as it approached the ship, and soon was only about 500
feet up. Suddenly it swooped down to about 300 feet above the Cushing.
Then there was a tremendous explosion, and a wave flooded the stern
deck. A second bomb missed the port quarter by a foot or so, and sent
another wave over the lower deck.
The biplane swung up into the wind, hung motionless for a second or so,
then came the third bomb, which just grazed the starboard rail and shot
into the sea.
The airship hung around for a few minutes, then headed toward the Dutch
coast. She was flying a white flag, with a black cross in the centre,
the pennant of the German air fleet.
CASE OF THE GULFLIGHT.
_Official confirmation of the attack on May 1, 1915, by a German
submarine on the American oil tank steamer Gulflight off the Scilly
Islands came to the State Department at Washington on May 3 in
dispatches from Joseph G. Stephens, the United States Consul at
Plymouth, England. Two members of the crew were drowned, the Captain
died of heart failure, and thirty-four members of the crew were saved.
Following is the sworn statement of Ralph E. Smith, late chief officer
and now master of the Gulflight, received from Ambassador Page and
published by the State Department at Washington on May 11:_
I am Ralph E. Smith, now master of the steamship Gulflight. At the
commencement of the voyage I was chief officer. The ship left port at
Port Arthur on the 10th day of April, 1915, about 4 P.M., laden with a
tank cargo of gasoline and wooden barrels of lubricating oil. The voyage
was uneventful.
When about half way across the Atlantic the wireless operator told me
there was a British cruiser in our vicinity and that he had heard
messages from this ship the whole time since leaving Port Arthur, but
she made no direct communication with or to our ship. From the sound of
the wireless messages given out by the British ship, she seemed to
maintain the same distance from us until about three days before we
reached the mouth of the English Channel.
On the first day of May, about 11 o'clock in the forenoon, we spoke two
British patrol vessels named Iago and Filey. We were then about
twenty-two miles west of the Bishop Lighthouse. The patrol vessels asked
where we were bound. After informing them we were bound for Rouen, they
ordered us to follow them to the Bishop. The Filey took up a position a
half mile distant on our port bow, the Iago off our starboard quarter
close to us. We steered as directed, and at about 12:22, the second
officer, being on watch, sighted a submarine on our port bow--slightly
on the port bow--steaming at right angles to our course. The submarine
was in sight for about five minutes, when she submerged about right
ahead of us. I saw her, but could not distinguish or see any flag flying
on her.
The Gulflight was then steering about true east, steaming about eight
miles an hour, flying a large American ensign, six feet by ten feet.
The wind was about south, about eight miles an hour in force. I
personally observed our flag was standing out well to the breeze.
Immediately after seeing the submarine I went aft and notified the crew
and came back and went on the bridge and heard the Captain make the
remark that that must be a British submarine, as the patrol boats took
no notice of it.
About 12:50 an explosion took place in the Gulflight on the bluff of the
starboard bow, sending vast quantities of water high in the air, coming
down on the bridge and shutting everything off from our view. After the
water cleared away our ship had sunk by the head so that the sea was
washing over the foredeck, and the ship appeared to be sinking.
Immediately after I went aft to see to the boats. On my way I saw one
man overboard on the starboard side. The water at that time was black
with oil. The boats were lowered and the crew got into them without
delay or damage. After ascertaining there was no one left on board the
ship I got in my boat and we were picked up by the patrol vessel Iago
and were advised by her crew to leave the scene. We proceeded toward St.
Mary's, but the dense fog which then came on prevented us getting into
the harbor that night.
About 2:30 in the morning following I saw Captain Gunter, master of the
Gulflight, who had been sleeping in the room of the skipper of the Iago,
standing in the room with a queer look in his face. I asked him what his
trouble was, and he made no reply. Then he reached for the side of the
berth with his hands, but did not take hold. I went in the room, but he
fell before I reached him.
He was taken on deck, as the cabin was small and hot. After reaching the
deck he seemed to revive and said: "I am cold." After that he had
apparently two fainting attacks and then expired in a third one--this
being about 3:40.
We arrived at St. Mary's, Scilly, about 10 o'clock on the morning of May
2. The Gulflight was towed to Crow Sound, Scilly, on May 2 by British
patrol vessels, and Commander Oliver, senior naval officer of the Port
of Scilly, sent for some one to come on board the Gulflight, and I went,
and the ship was anchored about 6 P.M.
I again left the ship that evening--she being then in charge of the
Admiralty. I visited the ship on Monday. I went out again on Tuesday,
but it was too rough to get on board. To the best of my knowledge there
was no examination of the vessel made by divers until Wednesday about 3
P.M., when members from the American Embassy were present. The divers at
this time made an external examination only of the ship's bottom and
left the ship with me at 5:40 P.M.
Aim of Submarine Warfare
[From The London Times, April 30, 1915.]
Dr. Flamm, Professor of Ship Construction at the Technical High School
at Charlottenburg, publishes in the Vossische Zeitung an extraordinary
article on the impending destruction of the British Empire by German
submarines. Whatever Professor Flamm's professional opinion may be
worth, he is evidently attacking his task with a passionate hatred of
England that leaves nothing to be desired.
Professor Flamm begins by explaining how England has been protected for
centuries by her insularity. He writes:
This country, whose dishonorable Government produced this
terrible world war by the most contemptible means, and solely
in selfish greed of gain, has always been able to enjoy the
fruits of its unscrupulousness because it was reckoned as
unassailable. But everything is subject to change, and that
applies today to the security of England's position. Thank
God, the time has now come when precisely its complete
encirclement by the sea has become the greatest danger for the
existence of the British Nation.
The writer explains that England cannot be self-supporting, and,
strangely enough, admits that recognition of this fact justifies British
naval policy. He proceeds:
The time, however, has passed in which even the strongest
squadron of battleships or cruisers can protect England's
frontiers and secure imports from oversea. Technical progress,
in the shape of submarines, has put into the hands of all
England's enemies the means at last to sever the vital nerve
of the much-hated enemy, and to pull him down from his
position of ruler of the world, which he has occupied for
centuries with ever-increasing ruthlessness and selfishness.
What science has once begun she continues, and for every
shipbuilder in the whole world there is now no sphere which
offers a stronger stimulus to progressive activity than the
sphere of the submarines. Here an endless amount of work is
being, and will be, done, because the reward which beckons on
the horizon is an extraordinarily high one, an extraordinarily
profitable one, a reward containing the most ideal blessings
for humanity--the destruction of English world supremacy, the
liberation of the seas. This exalted and noble aim has today
come within reach, and it is German intellect and German work
that have paved the way.
It will be noted that Professor Flamm, as other contemporary German
writers, believes that submarines, like Shakespeare, are a German
invention. He is also, notwithstanding the experience of two and a half
months, confident that the German "submarine blockade" will both be
successful and become popular with neutrals. Building upon the German
myth that Captain Weddigen's submarine, U-29, was destroyed while saving
life, Professor Flamm "expects" that the neutrals will stop all traffic
with England, "in view of the cowardly and cunning method of fighting of
the English."
Professor Flamm then discusses Germany's prospects, as follows:
Anybody who wants to fight England must not attempt it by
striving to bring against England larger and more numerous
battleships and cruisers. That would be not only unwise but
also very costly. He must try another method, which makes
England's great sea power completely illusory, and gives it
practically no opportunity for activity. This method is the
cutting-off of imports by submarine fleets. Let it not be
said that the attainment of this end requires a very great
deal of material. England, as can easily be seen from the map,
possesses a fairly limited number of river mouths and ports
for rapid development of her great oversea trade. Beginning in
the northeast, those on the east coast are mainly the Firth of
Forth, the mouths of the Tyne and Humber, and then the Thames;
in the south, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Plymouth, with some
neighboring harbors; in the west, the Bristol Channel, the
Mersey, the Solway, and the Clyde. These are the entries that
have to be blocked in order to cut off imports in a way that
will produce the full impression. For this purpose 150 of the
submarines of today fully suffice, so that the goal is within
reach. Moreover, the development of this arm will enormously
increase its value, and so, come what may, England must reckon
with the fact that her world supremacy cannot much longer
exist, and that the strongest navy can make no difference.
When once the invisible necktie is round John Bull's neck, his
breathing will soon cease, and the task of successfully
putting this necktie on him is solely a question of technical
progress and of time, which now moves so fast.
Professor Flamm ends with a passage about German submarine bases. It
would be more intelligible if he had made up his mind whether Germany is
going to take Calais or whether, according to another popular German
theory, England is going to annex the north coast of France. He writes:
"The eyes of France also will one day be opened when, having been
sufficiently weakened, she is compelled to leave the north coast of
France, including Calais, to her friend of today. Precisely this coast
which England has seized may be expected now to remain in English
possession for the purpose of better and surer control of the Channel,
for there can be no doubt that this control renders, and will render,
difficult for the German submarines effective activity in the Irish
Sea--an activity which will become all the easier as soon as Calais has
been freed of the enemy, or is even in German possession.
"Thus before very long a world fate should befall England. The trees do
not grow up to heaven. England, through her criminal Government, has
stretched the bow too tight, and so it will snap."
THREE SPEECHES BY PRESIDENT WILSON
In New York at the annual luncheon of The Associated Press on
April 20, 1915; at Philadelphia in Convention Hall on May 10,
in an address to 4,000 newly naturalized citizens, and again
at New York in his speech on the navy, May 17, delivered at
the luncheon given for the President by the Mayor's Committee
formed for the naval review, Mr. Wilson set forth the
principles on which he would meet the crises of the European
war as they affect the United States. The texts of the three
speeches appear below.
I.
"AMERICA FIRST."
[_President Wilson's address on April 20, 1915, to the members of The
Associated Press at their annual luncheon in New York:_]
I am deeply gratified by the generous reception you have accorded me. It
makes me look back with a touch of regret to former occasions when I
have stood in this place and enjoyed a greater liberty than is granted
me today. There have been times when I stood in this spot and said what
I really thought, and I pray God that those days of indulgence may be
accorded me again. But I have come here today, of course, somewhat
restrained by a sense of responsibility that I cannot escape.
For I take The Associated Press very seriously. I know the enormous part
that you play in the affairs not only of this country, but the world.
You deal in the raw material of opinion and, if my convictions have any
validity, opinion ultimately governs the world.
It is, therefore, of very serious things that I think as I face this
body of men. I do not think of you, however, as members of The
Associated Press. I do not think of you as men of different parties or
of different racial derivations or of different religious denominations,
I want to talk to you as to my fellow-citizens of the United States. For
there are serious things which as fellow-citizens we ought to consider.
The times behind us, gentlemen, have been difficult enough, the times
before us are likely to be more difficult because, whatever may be said
about the present condition of the world's affairs, it is clear that
they are drawing rapidly to a climax, and at the climax the test will
come, not only of the nations engaged in the present colossal struggle,
it will come for them of course, but the test will come to us
particularly.
Do you realize that, roughly speaking, we are the only great nation at
present disengaged? I am not speaking, of course, with disparagement of
the greater of those nations in Europe which are not parties to the
present war, but I am thinking of their close neighborhood to it. I am
thinking how their lives much more than ours touch the very heart and
stuff of the business; whereas, we have rolling between us and those
bitter days across the water three thousand miles of cool and silent
ocean.
Our atmosphere is not yet charged with those disturbing elements which
must be felt and must permeate every nation of Europe. Therefore, is it
not likely that the nations of the world will some day turn to us for
the cooler assessment of the elements engaged?
I am not now thinking so preposterous a thought as that we should sit in
judgment upon them. No nation is fit to sit in judgment upon any other
nation, but that we shall some day have to assist in reconstructing the
processes of peace. Our resources are untouched; we are more and more
becoming by the force of circumstances the mediating nation of the world
in respect to its finances. We must make up our minds what are the best
things to do and what are the best ways to do them.
We must put our money, our energy, our enthusiasm, our sympathy into
these things; and we must have our judgments prepared and our spirits
chastened against the coming of that day. So that I am not speaking in a
selfish spirit when I say that our whole duty for the present, at any
rate, is summed up in this motto, "America first." Let us think of
America before we think of Europe, in order that America may be fit to
be Europe's friend when the day of tested friendship comes. The test of
friendship is not now sympathy with the one side or the other, but
getting ready to help both sides when the struggle is over.
The basis of neutrality, gentlemen, is not indifference; it is not
self-interest. The basis of neutrality is sympathy for mankind. It is
fairness, it is good-will at bottom. It is impartiality of spirit and of
judgment. I wish that all of our fellow-citizens could realize that.
There is in some quarters a disposition to create distempers in this
body politic. Men are even uttering slanders against the United States
as if to excite her. Men are saying that if we should go to war upon
either side there will be a divided America--an abominable libel of
ignorance. America is not all of it vocal just now. It is vocal in
spots.
But I for one have a complete and abiding faith in that great silent
body of Americans who are not standing up and shouting and expressing
their opinions just now, but are waiting to find out and support the
duty of America. I am just as sure of their solidity and of their
loyalty and of their unanimity, if we act justly, as I am that the
history of this country has at every crisis and turning point
illustrated this great lesson.
We are the mediating nation of the world. I do not mean that we
undertake not to mind our own business and to mediate where other people
are quarreling. I mean the word in a broader sense. We are compounded of
the nations of the world. We mediate their blood, we mediate their
traditions, we mediate their sentiments, their tastes, their passions;
we are ourselves compounded of those things.
We are, therefore, able to understand all nations; we are able to
understand them in the compound, not separately, as partisans, but
unitedly, as knowing and comprehending and embodying them all. It is in
that sense that I mean that America is a mediating nation. The opinion
of America, the action of America, is ready to turn and free to turn in
any direction.
Did you ever reflect upon how almost all other nations, almost every
other nation has through long centuries been headed in one direction?
That is not true of the United States. The United States has no racial
momentum. It has no history back of it which makes it run all its
energies and all its ambitions in one particular direction; and America
is particularly free in this, that she has no hampering ambitions as a
world power.
If we have been obliged by circumstances or have considered ourselves to
be obliged by circumstances, in the past to take territory which we
otherwise would not have thought of taking, I believe I am right in
saying that we have considered it our duty to administer that territory,
not for ourselves, but for the people living in it, and to put this
burden upon our consciences not to think that this thing is ours for our
use, but to regard ourselves as trustees of the great business for those
to whom it does really belong, trustees ready to hand over the cosmic
trust at any time when the business seems to make that possible and
feasible. That is what I mean by saying we have no hampering ambitions.
We do not want anything that does not belong to us. Isn't a nation in
that position free to serve other nations, and isn't a nation like that
ready to form some part of the assessing opinion of the world?
My interest in the neutrality of the United States is not the petty
desire to keep out of trouble. To judge by my experience I have never
been able to keep out of trouble. I have never looked for it, but I have
always found it. I do not want to walk around trouble. If any man wants
a scrap--that is, an interesting scrap and worth while--I am his man. I
warn him that he is not going to draw me into the scrap for his
advertisement, but if he is looking for trouble--that is, the trouble of
men in general--and I can help a little, why, then, I am in for it. But
I am interested in neutrality because there is something so much
greater to do than fight, because there is something, there is a
distinction waiting for this nation that no nation has ever yet got.
That is the distinction of absolute self-control and self-mastery.
Whom do you admire most among your friends? The irritable man? The man
out of whom you can get a "rise" without trying? The man who will fight
at the drop of the hat, whether he knows what the hat is dropped for or
not?
Don't you admire and don't you fear, if you have to contest with him,
the self-mastered man who watches you with calm eye and comes in only
when you have carried the thing so far that you must be disposed of?
That is the man you respect. That is the man who you know has at bottom
a much more fundamental and terrible courage than the irritable,
fighting man.
Now, I covet for America this splendid courage of reserve moral force,
and I wanted to point out to you gentlemen simply this: There is news
and news. There is what is called news from Turtle Bay, that turns out
to be falsehood, at any rate in what it is said to signify, and which if
you could get the nation to believe it true might disturb our
equilibrium and our self-possession. We ought not to deal in stuff of
that kind. We ought not to permit things of that sort to use up the
electrical energy of the wires, because its energy is malign, its energy
is not of the truth, its energy is of mischief.
It is possible to sift truth. I have known some things to go out on the
wires as true when there was only one man or one group of men who could
have told the originators of the report whether it was true or not, and
they were not asked whether it was true or not for fear it might not be
true. That sort of report ought not to go out over the wires.
There is generally, if not always, somebody who knows whether that thing
is so or not, and in these days above all other days we ought to take
particular pains to resort to the one small group of men or to the one
man, if there be but one, who knows whether those things are true or
not.
The world ought to know the truth, but the world ought not at this
period of unstable equilibrium to be disturbed by rumor, ought not to be
disturbed by imaginative combinations of circumstances or, rather, by
circumstances stated in combination which do not belong in combination.
For we are holding--not I, but you and gentlemen engaged like you--the
balances in your hand. This unstable equilibrium rests upon scales that
are in your hands. For the food of opinion, as I began by saying, is the
news of the day. I have known many a man go off at a tangent on
information that was not reliable. Indeed, that describes the majority
of men. The world is held stable by the man who waits for the next day
to find out whether the report was true or not.
We cannot afford, therefore, to let the rumors of irresponsible persons
and origins get into the atmosphere of the United States. We are
trustees for what I venture to say is the greatest heritage that any
nation ever had, the love of justice and righteousness and human
liberty. For fundamentally those are the things to which America is
addicted and to which she is devoted.
There are groups of selfish men in the United States, there are coteries
where sinister things are purposed, but the great heart of the American
people is just as sound and true as it ever was. And it is a single
heart; it is the heart of America. It is not a heart made up of sections
selected out of other countries.
So that what I try to remind myself of every day when I am almost
overcome by perplexities, what I try to remember, is what the people at
home are thinking about. I try to put myself in the place of the man who
does not know all the things that I know and ask myself what he would
like the policy of this country to be. Not the talkative man, not the
partisan man, not the man that remembers first that he is a Republican
or Democrat, or that his parents were Germans or English, but who
remembers first that the whole destiny of modern affairs centres largely
upon his being an American first of all.
If I permitted myself to be a partisan in this present struggle I would
be unworthy to represent you. If I permitted myself to forget the
people who are not partisans I would be unworthy to represent you. I am
not saying that I am worthy to represent you, but I do claim this degree
of worthiness--that before everything else I love America.
[Illustration: THE LATE ARCHDUKE FERDINAND
Whose Assassination at Serajevo Precipitated the European War]
[Illustration: H.M. NICHOLAS I.
King of Montenegro, the Smallest of the Allied Powers
_(Photo © American Press Assn.)_]
II.
"HUMANITY FIRST."
[_President Wilson's speech in Convention Hall, Philadelphia, Penn., May
10, 1915, before 4,000 newly naturalized citizens:_]
It warms my heart that you should give me such a reception, but it is
not of myself that I wish to think tonight, but of those who have just
become citizens of the United States. This is the only country in the
world which experiences this constant and repeated rebirth. Other
countries depend upon the multiplication of their own native people.
This country is constantly drinking strength out of new sources by the
voluntary association with it of great bodies of strong men and
forward-looking women. And so by the gift of the free will of
independent people it is constantly being renewed from generation to
generation by the same process by which it was originally created. It is
as if humanity had determined to see to it that this great nation,
founded for the benefit of humanity, should not lack for the allegiance
of the people of the world.
You have just taken an oath of allegiance to the United States. Of
allegiance to whom? Of allegiance to no one, unless it be God. Certainly
not of allegiance to those who temporarily represent this great
Government. You have taken an oath of allegiance to a great ideal, to a
great body of principles, to a great hope of the human race. You have
said, "We are going to America," not only to earn a living, not only to
seek the things which it was more difficult to obtain where you were
born, but to help forward the great enterprises of the human spirit--to
let men know that everywhere in the world there are men who will cross
strange oceans and go where a speech is spoken which is alien to them,
knowing that, whatever the speech, there is but one longing and
utterance of the human heart, and that is for liberty and justice.
And while you bring all countries with you, you come with a purpose of
leaving all other countries behind you--bringing what is best of their
spirit, but not looking over your shoulders and seeking to perpetuate
what you intended to leave in them. I certainly would not be one even to
suggest that a man cease to love the home of his birth and the nation of
his origin--these things are very sacred and ought not to be put out of
our hearts--but it is one thing to love the place where you were born
and it is another thing to dedicate yourself to the place to which you
go. You cannot dedicate yourself to America unless you become in every
respect and with every purpose of your will thorough Americans. You
cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups.
American does not consist of groups. A man who thinks himself as
belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become
an American, and the man who goes among you to trade upon your
nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes.
My urgent advice to you would be not only always to think first of
America, but always, also, to think first of humanity. You do not love
humanity if you seek to divide humanity into jealous camps. Humanity can
be welded together only by love, by sympathy, by justice, not by
jealousy and hatred. I am sorry for the man who seeks to make personal
capital out of the passions of his fellow-men. He has lost the touch and
ideal of America, for America was created to unite mankind by those
passions which lift and not by the passions which separate and debase.
We came to America, either ourselves or in persons of our ancestors, to
better the ideals of men, to make them see finer things than they had
seen before, to get rid of things that divide, and to make sure of the
things that unite. It was but a historical accident no doubt that this
great country was called the "United States," and yet I am very
thankful that it has the word "united" in its title; and the man who
seeks to divide man from man, group from group, interest from interest,
in the United States is striking at its very heart.
It is a very interesting circumstance to me, in thinking of those of you
who have just sworn allegiance to this great Government, that you were
drawn across the ocean by some beckoning finger of hope, by some belief,
by some vision of a new kind of justice, by some expectation of a better
kind of life.
No doubt you have been disappointed in some of us; some of us are very
disappointing. No doubt you have found that justice in the United States
goes only with a pure heart and a right purpose as it does everywhere
else in the world. No doubt what you found here didn't seem touched for
you, after all, with the complete beauty of the ideal which you had
conceived beforehand.
But remember this, if we had grown at all poor in the ideal, you brought
some of it with you. A man does not go out to seek the thing that is not
in him. A man does not hope for the thing that he does not believe in,
and if some of us have forgotten what America believed in, you, at any
rate, imported in your own hearts a renewal of the belief. That is the
reason that I, for one, make you welcome.
If I have in any degree forgotten what America was intended for, I will
thank God if you will remind me.
I was born in America. You dreamed dreams of what America was to be, and
I hope you brought the dreams with you. No man that does not see visions
will ever realize any high hope or undertake any high enterprise.
Just because you brought dreams with you, America is more likely to
realize the dreams such as you brought. You are enriching us if you came
expecting us to be better than we are.
See, my friends, what that means. It means that Americans must have a
consciousness different from the consciousness of every other nation in
the world. I am not saying this with even the slightest thought of
criticism of other nations. You know how it is with a family. A family
gets centred on itself if it is not careful and is less interested in
the neighbors than it is in its own members.
So a nation that is not constantly renewed out of new sources is apt to
have the narrowness and prejudice of a family. Whereas, America must
have this consciousness, that on all sides it touches elbows and touches
hearts with all the nations of mankind.
The example of America must be a special example. The example of America
must be the example not merely of peace because it will not fight, but
of peace because peace is the healing and elevating influence of the
world and strife is not.
There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such a
thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince
others by force that it is right.
So, if you come into this great nation as you have come, voluntarily
seeking something that we have to give, all that we have to give is
this: We cannot exempt you from work. No man is exempt from work
anywhere in the world. I sometimes think he is fortunate if he has to
work only with his hands and not with his head. It is very easy to do
what other people give you to do, but it is very difficult to give other
people things to do. We cannot exempt you from work; we cannot exempt
you from the strife and the heart-breaking burden of the struggle of the
day--that is common to mankind everywhere. We cannot exempt you from the
loads that you must carry; we can only make them light by the spirit in
which they are carried. That is the spirit of hope, it is the spirit of
liberty, it is the spirit of justice.
When I was asked, therefore, by the Mayor and the committee that
accompanied him to come up from Washington to meet this great company of
newly admitted citizens I could not decline the invitation. I ought not
to be away from Washington, and yet I feel that it has renewed my spirit
as an American.
In Washington men tell you so many things every day that are not so,
and I like to come and stand in the presence of a great body of my
fellow-citizens, whether they have been my fellow-citizens a long time
or a short time, and drink, as it were, out of the common fountains with
them and go back feeling that you have so generously given me the sense
of your support and of the living vitality in your hearts, of its great
ideals which made America the hope of the world.
III.
AMERICA FOR HUMANITY.
[_President Wilson's address to the Mayor's Committee in New York, May
17, 1915, on the occasion of the naval parade and review in the
Hudson:_]
Mr. Mayor, Mr. Secretary, Admiral Fletcher, and Gentlemen of the Fleet:
This is not an occasion upon which it seems to me that it would be wise
for me to make many remarks, but I would deprive myself of a great
gratification if I did not express my pleasure in being here, my
gratitude for the splendid reception which has been accorded me as the
representative of the nation, and my profound interest in the navy of
the United States. That is an interest with which I was apparently born,
for it began when I was a youngster and has ripened with my knowledge of
the affairs and policies of the United States.
I think it is a natural, instinctive judgment of the people of the
United States that they express their power appropriately in an
efficient navy, and their interest is partly, I believe, because that
navy somehow is expected to express their character, not within our own
borders where that character is understood, but outside our borders,
where it is hoped we may occasionally touch others with some slight
vision of what America stands for.
But before I speak of the navy of the United States I want to take
advantage of the first public opportunity I have had to speak of the
Secretary of the Navy, to express my confidence and my admiration, and
to say that he has my unqualified support, for I have counseled with
him in intimate fashion. I know how sincerely he has it at heart that
everything that the navy does and handles should be done and handled as
the people of the United States wish them handled--because efficiency is
something more than organization. Efficiency runs into every
well-considered detail of personnel and method. Efficiency runs to the
extent of lifting the ideals of a service above every personal interest.
So that when I speak my support of the Secretary of the Navy I am merely
speaking my support of what I know every true lover of the navy to
desire and to purpose, for the navy of the United States is a body
specially trusted with the ideal of America.
I like to image in my thought this ideal. These quiet ships lying in the
river have no suggestion of bluster about them--no intimation of
aggression. They are commanded by men thoughtful of the duty of citizens
as well as the duty of officers--men acquainted with the traditions of
the great service to which they belong--men who know by touch with the
people of the United States what sort of purposes they ought to
entertain and what sort of discretion they ought to exercise in order to
use those engines of force as engines to promote the interests of
humanity.
For the interesting and inspiring thing about America, gentlemen, is
that she asks nothing for herself except what she has a right to ask for
humanity itself. We want no nation's property; we wish to question no
nation's honor; we wish to stand selfishly in the way of the development
of no nation; we want nothing that we cannot get by our own legitimate
enterprise and by the inspiration of our own example, and, standing for
these things, it is not pretention on our part to say that we are
privileged to stand for what every nation would wish to stand for, and
speak for those things which all humanity must desire.
When I think of the flag that those ships carry, the only touch of color
about them, the only thing that moves as if it had a settled spirit in
it, in their solid structure, it seems to me I see alternate strips of
parchment upon which are written the rights of liberty and justice and
strips of blood spilt to vindicate those rights, and then, in the
corner, a prediction of the blue serene into which every nation may swim
which stands for these great things.
The mission of America is the only thing that a sailor or soldier should
think about; he has nothing to do with the formulation of her policy; he
is to support her policy, whatever it is--but he is to support her
policy in the spirit of herself, and the strength of our policy is that
we, who for the time being administer the affairs of this nation, do not
originate her spirit; we attempt to embody it; we attempt to realize it
in action we are dominated by it, we do not dictate it.
And so with every man in arms who serves the nation--he stands and waits
to do the thing which the nation desires. America sometimes seems
perhaps to forget her programs, or, rather, I would say that sometimes
those who represent her seem to forget her programs, but the people
never forget them. It is as startling as it is touching to see how
whenever you touch a principle you touch the hearts of the people of the
United States. They listen to your debates of policy, they determine
which party they will prefer to power, they choose and prefer as
ordinary men; but their real affection, their real force, their real
irresistible momentum, is for the ideas which men embody.
I never go on the streets of a great city without feeling that somehow I
do not confer elsewhere than on the streets with the great spirit of the
people themselves, going about their business, attending to the things
which concern them, and yet carrying a treasure at their hearts all the
while, ready to be stirred not only as individuals, but as members of a
great union of hearts that constitutes a patriotic people.
And so this sight in the river touches me merely as a symbol of that,
and it quickens the pulse of every man who realizes these things to have
anything to do with them. When a crisis occurs in this country,
gentlemen, it is as if you put your hand on the pulse of a dynamo, it is
as if the things which you were in connection with were spiritually
bred. You had nothing to do with them except, if you listen truly, to
speak the things that you hear. These things now brood over the river,
this spirit now moves with the men who represent the nation in the navy,
these things will move upon the waters in the manoeuvres; no threat
lifted against any man, against any nation, against any interest, but
just a great, solemn evidence that the force of America is the force of
moral principle, that there is not anything else that she loves and that
there is not anything else for which she will contend.
Two Ex-Presidents' Views
MR. ROOSEVELT SPEAKS.
[Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.]
_SYRACUSE, N.Y., May 7.--Ex-President Roosevelt, after learning details
of the sinking of the Lusitania, made this statement late tonight:_
This represents not merely piracy, but piracy on a vaster scale of
murder than old-time pirates ever practiced. This is the warfare which
destroyed Louvain and Dinant and hundreds of men, women, and children in
Belgium. It is a warfare against innocent men, women, and children
traveling on the ocean, and our own fellow-countrymen and countrywomen,
who are among the sufferers.
It seems inconceivable that we can refrain from taking action in this
matter, for we owe it not only to humanity, but to our own national
self-respect.
_On May 9 a Syracuse dispatch to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES _conveyed this
statement from Mr. Roosevelt:_
On the night of the day that the disaster occurred I called the
attention of our people to the fact that the sinking of the Lusitania
was not only an act of simple piracy, but that it represented piracy
accompanied by murder on a vaster scale than any old-time pirate had
ever practiced before being hanged for his misdeeds.
I called attention to the fact that this was merely the application on
the high seas, and at our expense, of the principles which when applied
on land had produced the innumerable hideous tragedies that have
occurred in Belgium and in Northern France.
I said that not only our duty to humanity at large but our duty to
preserve our own national self-respect demanded instant action on our
part and forbade all delay.
I can do little more than reiterate what I then said.
When the German decree establishing the war zone was issued, and of
course plainly threatened exactly the type of tragedy which has
occurred, our Government notified Germany that in the event of any such
wrongdoing at the expense of our citizens we would hold the German
Government to "a strict accountability."
The use of this phrase, "strict accountability," of course, must mean,
and can only mean, that action will be taken by us without an hour's
unnecessary delay. It was eminently proper to use the exact phrase that
was used, and, having used it, our own self-respect demands that we
forthwith abide by it.
_On May 11, following the report of President Wilson's speech at
Philadelphia, Mr. Roosevelt stated the course which he considered that
this country should adopt, reported as follows in a Syracuse dispatch
to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Colonel Roosevelt announced today what action, in his opinion, this
country should take toward Germany because of the sinking of the
Lusitania. Colonel Roosevelt earnestly said that the time for
deliberation was past and that within twenty-four hours this country
could, and should, take effective action by declaring that all commerce
with Germany forthwith be forbidden and that all commerce of every kind
permitted and encouraged with France, England, and "the rest of the
civilized world."
Colonel Roosevelt said that for America to take this step would not mean
war, as the firm assertion of our rights could not be so construed, but
he added that we would do well to remember that there were things worse
than war.
The Colonel has been reading President Wilson's speech carefully, and
what seemed to impress him more than anything else was this passage from
it:
"There is such a thing as a man being too proud to fight. There is such
a thing as a nation being so right that it does not need to convince
others by force that it is right."
Asked if he cared to make any comment upon the speech of the President,
Mr. Roosevelt said:
"I think that China is entitled to draw all the comfort she can from
this statement and it would be well for the United States to ponder
seriously what the effect upon China has been of managing her foreign
affairs during the last fifteen years on the theory thus enunciated.
"If the United States is satisfied with occupying some time in the
future the precise international position that China now occupies, then
the United States can afford to act on this theory. But it cannot act on
this theory if it desires to retain or regain the position won for it by
the men who fought under Washington and by the men who, in the days of
Abraham Lincoln, wore the blue under Grant and the gray under Lee.
"I very earnestly hope that we will act promptly. The proper time for
deliberation was prior to sending the message that our Government would
hold Germany to a strict accountability if it did the things it has now
actually done. The 150 babies drowned on the Lusitania the hundreds of
women drowned with them, scores of these women and children being
Americans, and the American ship, the Gulflight, which was torpedoed,
offer an eloquent commentary on the actual working of the theory that
force is not necessary to assert, and that a policy of blood and iron
can with efficacy be met by a policy of milk and water.
"I see it stated in the press dispatches from Washington that Germany
now offers to stop the practice on the high seas, committed in violation
of the neutral rights that she is pledged to observe, if we will abandon
further neutral rights, which by her treaty she has solemnly pledged
herself to see that we exercise without molestation. Such a proposal is
not even entitled to an answer. The manufacturing and shipment of arms
and ammunition to any belligerent is moral or immoral according to the
use to which the arms and munitions are to be put. If they are to be
used to prevent the redress of the hideous wrongs inflicted on Belgium,
then it is immoral to ship them. If they are to be used for the redress
of those wrongs and the restoration of Belgium to her deeply wronged and
unoffending people, then it is eminently moral to send them.
"Without twenty-four hours' delay this country could, and should, take
effective action by declaring that in view of Germany's murderous
offenses against the rights of neutrals, all commerce with Germany shall
be forthwith forbidden, and all commerce of every kind permitted and
encouraged with France, England, and the rest of the civilized world.
This would not be a declaration of war. It would merely prevent
munitions of war being sent to a power which by its conduct has shown
willingness to use munitions to slaughter American men and women and
children. I do not believe the assertion of our rights means war, but we
will do well to remember there are things worse than war.
"Let us, as a nation, understand that peace is worthy only when it is
the handmaiden of international righteousness and of national
self-respect."
MR. TAFT SPEAKS.
[By The Associated Press.]
MILWAUKEE, May 8.--"The news of the sinking of the Lusitania as it comes
this morning is most distressing," said former President Taft on his
arrival from Madison today. "It presents a situation of the most
difficult character, properly awakening great national concern.
"I do not wish to embarrass the President of the Administration by a
discussion of the subject at this stage of the information, except to
express confidence that the President will follow a wise and patriotic
course."
_That it is possible for the United States to hold Germany "strictly
accountable" for the destruction of American lives on the Lusitania
without resort to war is Mr. Taft's opinion, reported in the following
dispatch from Philadelphia to_ THE NEW YORK TIMES _on May 11:_
"We must bear in mind that if we have a war it is the people, the men
and women, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, who must pay with
lives and money the cost of it, and therefore they should not be hurried
into the sacrifices until it is made clear that they wish it and know
what they are doing when they wish it."
This was the keynote of a speech by ex-President Taft at the celebration
of the fiftieth anniversary of the Union League's occupancy of the
historic home which it occupies in this city.
"Is war the only method of making a nation accountable? Let us look into
our own history. England connived at the fitting out of armed vessels,
to prey on our commerce, to attack our navy, and to kill our sailors. We
protested, and what did we do then? We held her strictly accountable in
the Geneva Conference. Was not our honor as much preserved by this
method as it would have been had we declared war?
"I agree that the inhumanity of the circumstances in the case now
presses us on, but in the heat of even just indignation is this the best
time to act, when action involves such momentous consequences and means
untold loss of life and treasure? There are things worse than war, but
delay, due to calm deliberation, cannot change the situation or minimize
the effect of what we finally conclude to do.
"With the present condition of the war in Europe, our action, if it is
to be extreme, will not lose efficiency by giving time to the people,
whose war it will be, to know what they are facing.
"A demand for war that cannot survive the passion of the first days of
public indignation and will not endure the test of delay and
deliberation by all the people is not one that should be yielded to."
President Wilson's Note
By Ex-President William H. Taft.
_At the dinner of Methodist laymen in New York on May 14, 1915,
following the publication of President Wilson's note to Germany,
ex-President Taft said:_
"Admirable in tone, moderate in the judicial spirit that runs through
the entire communication, dignified in the level that the writer takes
with respect to international obligations, accurate in its statement of
international law, he puts the case of the United States in a way that
may well call for our earnest concurrence and confirmation."
Another View
By Beatrice Barry.
"When the torch is near the powder"--when a boat, f'r instance, sinks,
And the "hyphens" raise a loud hurrah and blow themselves to drinks;
When 'bout a hundred neutral lives are snuffed out like a torch,
An' "hyphens" read the news an' smoke, a-settin' on the porch--
Well, it's then the native's kind o' apt to see a little red,
An' it's hardly fair to criticise the burning things he sed.
For since the eagle's not a bird that thrives within a cage,
One kind o' hears with sympathy his screams of baffled rage.
There's something sort o' horrible, that catches at the breath,
To visualize some two score babes most foully done to death;
To see their fright, their struggles--to watch their lips turn blue--
There ain't no use denyin', it will raise the deuce with you.
O yes, God bless the President--he's an awful row to hoe,
An' God grant, too, that peace with honor hand in hand may go,
But let's not call men "rotters," 'cause, while we are standing pat,
They lose their calm serenity, an' can't see things like that!
In the Submarine War Zone
[By The Associated Press.]
LIVERPOOL, May 16.--The passengers on board the American Line steamer
Philadelphia, which arrived here today from New York, the steamer
docking at 1 P.M., experienced during the voyage much anxiety. On Friday
afternoon, out in the Atlantic off the west coast of Ireland, a cruiser
appeared and approached the liner. The chief topic of conversation
during the voyage had been about the German submarine activities, and
the sight of the warship caused some alarm. The cruiser approached near
enough to the steamer to exchange signals with her.
A number of passengers spent last night on deck in their chairs with
lifebelts beside them in case of danger. The boats of the Philadelphia
were ready for use. The steamer kept a course much further out from the
Irish coast than the Lusitania was traversing when she was torpedoed.
The port officials subjected the passengers of the Philadelphia to a
careful examination to discover if there were any spies on board, but
nobody was detained. By reason of this precaution it was more than an
hour after the steamer arrived before her passengers began to debark.
American Shipments of Arms
By Count von Bernstorff, German Ambassador at Washington
Count von Bernstorff, the German Ambassador, made public on
April 11, 1915, a memorandum addressed to the United States
Government on April 4, complaining of its attitude toward the
shipment of war munitions to the Allies and the non-shipment
of foodstuffs to Germany. After picturing the foreign policy
of the United States Government as one of futility, Count von
Bernstorff's memorandum says it must be "assumed that the
United States Government has accepted England's violations of
international law." Its full text appears below, followed by
that of the American State Department's reply.
The different British Orders in Council have altered the universally
recognized rules of international law in such a one-sided manner that
they arbitrarily suppress the trade of neutral countries with Germany.
Already, prior to the last Order in Council, the shipment of conditional
contraband, especially foodstuffs, to Germany was practically
impossible. In fact, prior to the protest which the American Government
made in London on Dec. 28, 1914, not a single shipment of such goods for
Germany has been effected from the United States.
Also, after the lodging of the protest, and as far as is known to the
German Embassy, only one such shipment has been attempted by an American
skipper. Ship and cargo were immediately seized by the British, and are
still detained at a British port. As a pretext for this unwarranted
action the British Government referred to a decree of the German Federal
Council concerning the wheat trade, although this decree only covered
wheat and flour and no other foodstuffs, although imported foodstuffs
were especially exempt from this decree, and although the German
Government had given all necessary guarantees to the United States
Government, and had even proposed a special organization in order to
secure these foodstuffs for the exclusive consumption of the civilian
population.
The seizure of an American ship under these circumstances was in
contradiction with the recognized principles of international law.
Nevertheless the United States Government has not yet obtained the
release of the ship, nor has it after eight months of war succeeded in
safeguarding the legitimate American trade with Germany. Such a delay,
especially when the supply of foodstuffs is concerned, seems equivalent
to complete failure. It is therefore to be assumed that the United
States Government has accepted England's violations of international
law.
Furthermore has to be considered the attitude of the Government of the
United States concerning the question of the exportation of war
material. The Imperial Embassy hopes to agree with the Government of the
United States in assuming that, with regard to the question of
neutrality, there is not only the formal side to be considered, but also
the spirit in which neutrality is enforced.
Conditions in the present war are different from those in any former
wars. For this reason it is not justified to point at the fact that
perhaps in former wars Germany furnished belligerents with war material,
because in those former cases the question was not whether any war
material was to be furnished to the belligerents but merely which one of
the competing countries would furnish it. In the present war, with the
exception of the United States, all the countries capable of a
noteworthy production of war material are either at war themselves or
completing their armaments, and have accordingly prohibited the
exportation of war material. Therefore the United States of America is
the only country in a position to export war material. This fact ought
to give a new meaning to the idea of neutrality, independent of the
formal law.
Instead of that, and in contradiction with the real spirit of
neutrality, an enormous new industry of war materials of every kind is
being built up in the United States, inasmuch as not only the existing
plants are kept busy and enlarged, but also new ones are continually
founded.
The international agreements for the protection of the right of neutrals
originate in the necessity of protecting the existing industries of the
neutral countries. They were never intended to encourage the creation of
entirely new industries in neutral States, as, for instance, the new war
industry in the United States, which supplies only one party of the
belligerents.
In reality the American industry is supplying only Germany's enemies. A
fact which is in no way modified by the purely theoretical willingness
to furnish Germany as well, if it were possible.
If the American people desire to observe true neutrality, they will find
means to stop the exclusive exportation of arms to one side, or at
least to use this export trade as a means to uphold the legitimate trade
with Germany, especially the trade in foodstuffs. This spirit of
neutrality should appear the more justified to the United States as it
has been maintained toward Mexico.
According to the declaration of a Congressman, made in the House
Committee for Foreign Relations Dec. 30, 1914, President Wilson is
quoted as having said on Feb. 4, 1914, when the embargo on arms for
Mexico was lifted:
"We should stand for genuine neutrality, considering the
surrounding facts of the case." He then held in that case,
because Carranza had no ports, while Huerta had them and was
able to import these materials, that "it was our duty as a
nation to treat them (Carranza and Huerta) upon an equality if
we wished to observe the true spirit of neutrality as compared
with a mere paper neutrality."
This conception of "the true spirit of neutrality," if applied to the
present case, would lead to an embargo on arms.
The American Reply
_The following note, which contains a vigorous rebuke to the German
Ambassador for the freedom of his remarks on the course taken by the
United States toward the belligerent powers, was made public at
Washington on April 21, 1916. It was then reported that the note was
finally drafted by President Wilson himself and written by him on his
own typewriter at the White House, although it is signed by Mr. Bryan as
Secretary of State:_
I have given thoughtful consideration to your Excellency's note of the
4th of April, 1915, inclosing a memorandum of the same date, in which
your Excellency discusses the action of this Government with regard to
trade between the United States and Germany, and the attitude of this
Government with regard to the exportation of arms from the United States
to the nations now at war with Germany.
I must admit that I am somewhat at a loss how to interpret your
Excellency's treatment of these matters. There are many circumstances
connected with these important subjects to which I would have expected
your Excellency to advert but of which you make no mention, and there
are other circumstances to which you do refer which I would have
supposed to be hardly appropriate for discussion between the Government
of the United States and the Government of Germany.
I shall take the liberty, therefore, of regarding your Excellency's
references to the course, pursued by the Government of the United
States, with regard to interferences with trade from this country such
as the Government of Great Britain have attempted, as intended merely to
illustrate more fully the situation to which you desire to call our
attention, and not as an invitation to discuss that course.
Your Excellency's long experience in international affairs will have
suggested to you that these relations of the two Governments with one
another cannot wisely be made a subject of discussion with a third
Government, which cannot be fully informed as to the facts, and which
cannot be fully cognizant of the reasons for the course pursued.
I believe, however, that I am justified in assuming that what you desire
to call forth is a frank statement of the position of this Government in
regard to its obligations as a neutral power.
The general attitude and course of policy of this Government in the
maintenance of its neutrality I am particularly anxious that your
Excellency should see in their true light. I had hoped that this
Government's position in these respects had been made abundantly clear,
but I am, of course, perfectly willing to state it again.
This seems to me the more necessary and desirable because, I regret to
say, the language, which your Excellency employs in your memorandum, is
susceptible of being construed as impugning the good faith of the United
States in the performance of its duties as a neutral.
I take it for granted that no such implication was intended, but it is
so evident that your Excellency is laboring under certain false
impressions that I cannot be too explicit in setting forth the facts as
they are, when fully reviewed and comprehended.
In the first place, this Government has at no time and in no manner
yielded any one of its rights as a neutral to any one of the present
belligerents.
It has acknowledged, as a matter of course, the right of visit and
search and the right to apply the rules of contraband of war to articles
of commerce. It has, indeed, insisted upon the use of visit and search
as an absolutely necessary safeguard against mistaking neutral vessels
for vessels owned by any enemy and against mistaking legal cargoes for
illegal. It has admitted also the right of blockade if actually
exercised and effectively maintained.
These are merely the well-known limitations which war places upon
neutral commerce on the high seas. But nothing beyond these has it
conceded.
I call your Excellency's attention to this, notwithstanding it is
already known to all the world as a consequence of the publication of
our correspondence in regard to these matters with several of the
belligerent nations, because I cannot assume that you have official
cognizance of it.
In the second place, this Government attempted to secure from the German
and British Governments mutual concessions with regard to the measures
those Governments respectively adopted for the interruption of trade on
the high seas. This it did, not of right, but merely as exercising the
privileges of a sincere friend of both parties and as indicating its
impartial good-will.
The attempt was unsuccessful, but I regret that your Excellency did not
deem it worthy of mention in modification of the impressions you
expressed. We had hoped that this act on our part had shown our spirit
in these times of distressing war, as our diplomatic correspondence had
shown our steadfast refusal to acknowledge the right of any belligerent
to alter the accepted rules of war at sea in so far as they affect the
rights and interests of neutrals.
In the third place, I note with sincere regret that in discussing the
sale and exportation of arms by citizens of the United States to the
enemies of Germany, your Excellency seems to be under the impression
that it was within the choice of the Government of the United States,
notwithstanding its professed neutrality and its diligent efforts to
maintain it in other particulars, to inhibit this trade, and that its
failure to do so manifested an unfair attitude toward Germany.
This Government holds, as I believe your Excellency is aware and as it
is constrained to hold in view of the present indisputable doctrines of
accepted international law, that any change in its own laws of
neutrality during the progress of a war, which would affect unequally
the relations of the United States with the nations at war, would be an
unjustifiable departure from the principle of strict neutrality, by
which it has consistently sought to direct its actions, and I
respectfully submit that none of the circumstances, urged in your
Excellency's memorandum, alters the principle involved.
The placing of an embargo on the trade in arms at the present time would
constitute such a change and be a direct violation of the neutrality of
the United States. It will, I feel assured, be clear to your Excellency
that holding this view and considering itself in honor bound by it, it
is out of the question for this Government to consider such a course.
I hope that your Excellency will realize the spirit in which I am
drafting this reply. The friendship between the people of the United
States and the people of Germany is so warm and of such long standing,
the ties which bind them to one another in amity are so many and so
strong, that this Government feels under a special compulsion to speak
with perfect frankness, when any occasion arises which seems likely to
create any misunderstanding, however slight or temporary, between those
who represent the Governments of the two countries.
It will be a matter of gratification to me if I have removed from your
Excellency's mind any misapprehension you may have been under regarding
either the policy or the spirit and purposes of the Government of the
United States.
Its neutrality is founded upon the firm basis of conscience and
good-will.
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
W.J. BRYAN.
Munitions From Neutrals
[Colloquy in the House of Commons, May 4, 1915.]
Sir E. Grey, in reply to Sir A. Markham, (L., Mansfield,) said: The
United States Government have not at any time during the present war
supplied any war material of any kind to his Majesty's Government, and I
do not suppose that they have supplied any of the belligerents. It has
always been a recognized legitimate practice, and wholly consistent with
international law, for manufacturers in a neutral country to sell
munitions of war to belligerents. They were supplied in this way from
Germany to Russia during the Russo-Japanese war, and from Germany to
Great Britain during the Boer war, and are no doubt being supplied in
the same way from manufacturers in neutral countries to belligerents
now.
Mr. MacNeill (N., South Donegal)--Has not the rule always been, before
The Hague Conferences at all, that subjects of neutral nations are
allowed to supply munitions of war at their own risk?
Sir E. Grey--It is wholly consistent with international law that that
practice should go forward, and if there be any question of departure
from neutrality I think it will be, not in permitting that practice, but
in interfering with it. [Cheers.]
Germany and the Lusitania
By Charles W. Eliot
_President Emeritus of Harvard University._
That the sinking of the Lusitania was an act which outraged
not only the existing conventions of the civilized world but
the moral feelings of present civilized society is the view
put forth in his letter to THE NEW YORK TIMES, appearing May
15, 1915, by one of the most distinguished commentators on the
war. Dr. Eliot counsels that America's part is to resist such
a no-faith policy while keeping its neutral status.
Cambridge, Mass., May 13, 1915.
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
The sinking of a great merchant vessel, carrying 2,500 noncombatant men,
women, and children, without giving them any chance to save their lives,
was in violation of long-standing conventions among civilized nations,
concerning the conduct of naval warfare. The pre-existing conventions
gave to a German vessel of war the right to destroy the Lusitania and
her cargo, if it were impossible to carry her into port as a prize; but
not to drown her passengers and crew. The pre-existing conventions or
agreements were, however, entered into by the civilized nations when
captures at sea were made by war vessels competent to take a prize into
some port, or to take off the passengers and crew of the captured
vessel.
The German Government now alleges that submarines are today the only
vessels it can employ effectively for attack on British commerce in the
declared war zone about the British Isles, since the rest of the German
Navy cannot keep the seas in face of the superior British Navy. Germany
further alleges that the present British blockade of German ports is
conducted in a new way--that is, by vessels which patrol the German
coast at a greater distance from the actual harbors than was formerly
the international practice; and hence, that Germany is justified in
conducting her attack on British commerce in a novel way also. In short,
Germany argues that her military necessities compel her to sink enemy
commercial vessels without regard to the lives of passengers and crews,
in spite of the fact that she was party to international agreements that
no such act should be committed.
The lesson which the sinking of the Lusitania teaches is, therefore,
this: Germany thinks it right to disregard on grounds of military
necessity existing international conventions with regard to naval
warfare, precisely as she disregarded the agreed-upon neutrality of
Belgium on the ground of military necessity. As in the case of Belgium
she had decided many years beforehand to violate the international
neutrality agreement, and had made all her plans for reaching Paris in a
few weeks by passing through Belgium, so on the sea she had decided
months ago that the necessity of interfering as much as possible with
British commerce and industries warrants her total disregard of the
existing rules of naval warfare, and has deliberately contrived the
sinking of merchant vessels without regard to the lives of the people on
board.
Again, when Germany thought it necessary on her quick march toward Paris
not only to crush the Belgian Army but to terrify the noncombatant
population of Belgium into complete submission by bombarding and burning
cities, towns, and villages, by plundering and shooting noncombatants,
by imposing heavy fines and ransoms, and by holding noncombatants as
hostages for the peaceable behavior of all Belgian citizens, she
disregarded all the conventions made by the civilized nations within
seventy years for mitigating the horrors of war, and justified her
action on the ground that it was a military necessity, since in no other
way could she immediately secure the safety of her communications as
she rushed on Paris. The civilized world had supposed that each nation
would make war only on the public forces and resources of its
antagonist; but last August Germany made ferocious war on noncombatants
and private property.
The sinking of the Lusitania is another demonstration that the present
German Government will not abide by any international contracts,
treaties, or agreements, if they, at a given moment, would interfere
with any military or naval course of action which the Government deems
necessary.
These demonstrated policies and purposes of the German Empire raise the
fundamental question--how is the civilization of the white race to be
carried forward? How are the real welfare of that race and the happiness
of the individuals that compose it to be hereafter furthered? Since the
revolutions in England, America, and France, it has been supposed that
civilization was to be advanced by international agreements or treaties,
by the co-operation of the civilized nations in the gradual improvement
of these agreements, and by the increasing practical effect given to
them by nations acting in co-operation; but now comes the German Empire
with its military force, immense in numbers and efficient beyond all
former experience through the intelligent use for destructive purposes
of the new powers attained by applied science, saying not only in words,
but in terrible acts: "We shall not abide by any international contracts
or agreements into which we may have previously entered, if at the
passing moment they interfere or conflict with the most advantageous
immediate use of our military and naval force." If this doctrine shall
now prevail in Europe, the foundations of modern civilization and of all
friendly and beneficial commerce the world over will be undermined.
The sinking of the Lusitania, therefore, makes perfectly clear the
nature of the problem with which the three Allies in Europe are now
struggling. They are resisting with all the weapons of war a nation
which declares that its promises are good only till it is, in its own
judgment, under the military necessity of breaking them.
The neutral nations are looking on at this tremendous conflict between
good-faith nations and no-faith nations with intense anxiety and sorrow,
but no longer in any doubt as to the nature of the issue. The sinking of
the Lusitania has removed every doubt; because that was a deliberate act
in full sight of the world, and of a nature not to be obscured or
confused by conflicting testimonies or questions about possible
exaggeration of outrages or about official responsibility for them. The
sinking of the Lusitania was an act which outraged not only the existing
conventions of the civilized world in regard to naval warfare, but the
moral feelings of present civilized society.
The neutral nations and some of the belligerent nations feel another
strong objection to the present German way of conducting war on land and
sea, namely that it brutalizes the soldier and the sailor to an
unprecedented degree. English French, and Russian soldiers on the one
side can contend with German, Austrian and Turkish soldiers on the other
with the utmost fierceness from trenches or in the open, use new and old
weapons of destruction, and kill and wound each other with equal ardor
and resolution, and yet not be brutalized or degraded in their moral
nature, if they fight from love of country or with self-sacrificing
loyalty to its spiritual ideals; but neither soldiers nor sailors can
attack defenseless noncombatants, systematically destroy towns and
villages, and put to death captured men, women, and children without
falling in their moral nature before the brutes. That he obeyed orders
will not save from moral ruin the soldier or sailor who does such deeds.
He should have refused to obey such orders and taken the consequences.
This is true even of the privates, but more emphatically of the
officers. The white race has often been proud of the way in which its
soldiers and sailors have fought in many causes--good, bad, and
indifferent; because they fought bravely took defeat resolutely, and
showed humanity after victory. The German method of conducting war
omits chivalry, mercy, and humanity, and thereby degrades the German
Nation and any other nation which sympathizes with it or supports its
methods. It is no answer to the world's objection to the sinking of the
Lusitania that Great Britain uses its navy to cut off from Germany food
and needed supplies for its industries, for that is a recognized and
effective method of warfare; whereas the sinking of an occasional
merchant ship with its passengers and crew is a method of warfare
nowhere effective, and almost universally condemned. If war, with its
inevitable stratagems, ambuscades, and lies must continue to be the
arbiter in international disputes, it is certainly desirable that such
magnanimity in war as the conventions of the last century made possible
should not be lost because of Germany's behavior in the present European
convulsion. It is also desirable to reaffirm with all possible emphasis
that fidelity to international agreements is the taproot of human
progress.
On the supposition that the people of the United States have learned the
lesson of the Lusitania, so far as an understanding of the issues at
stake in this gigantic war is concerned, can they also get from it any
guidance in regard to their own relation to the fateful struggle?
Apparently, not yet. With practical unanimity the American people will
henceforth heartily desire the success of the Allies, and the decisive
defeat of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. With practical unanimity
they will support whatever action the Administration at Washington shall
decide to take in the immediate emergency; but at present they do not
feel that they know whether they can best promote the defeat of the
Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey by remaining
neutral or by taking active part in the conflict. Unless a dismemberment
of Austria-Hungary is brought about by Italy and Rumania or some other
Balkan State entering the war on the side of the Allies, it now seems as
if neither party would acknowledge defeat until exhausted or brought to
a sudden moral collapse. Exhaustion in war can best be prevented by
maintaining in activity the domestic industries and general
productiveness of the nation involved in war and those of the neutral
nations which are in position to feed it, and manufacture for it
munitions, clothing, and the other supplies that war demands. While
remaining strictly neutral, North and South America can be of great
service to the Allies. To be sure, as a neutral the United States will
be obliged to give some aid to Germany and her allies, such, for
example, as harboring the interned commercial fleet of Germany; but this
aid will be comparatively insignificant. The services which the American
republics can thus render to the cause of liberty and civilization are
probably more considerable than any they could render by direct
contributions of military or naval force. Kept free from the drain of
war, the republics will be better able to supply food, clothing,
munitions, and money to the Allies both during the war and after the
conclusion of peace.
On the whole, the wisest thing the neutral nations can do, which are
remote from the theatres of war, and have no territorial advantages to
seek at the coming of peace, is probably to defend vigorously and with
the utmost sincerity and frankness all the existing rights of neutrals.
By acting thus in the present case they will promote national
righteousness and hinder national depravity, discourage, for the future,
domination by any single great power in any part of the world, and help
the cause of civilization by strengthening the just liberty and
independence of many nations--large and small, and of different
capacities and experiences--which may reasonably hope, if the Prussian
terror can be abolished, to live together in peaceful co-operation for
the common good.
Appeals for American Defense
Need of Further Protecting Neutral Rights Set Forth.
By GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.
_Formerly United States Attorney General._
_To the Editor of The New York Times:_
The destruction of the Lusitania by the Germans, and the wanton killing
of American men, women, and children, without warning, brings sharply
before the American people the question of how long the present sexless
policy of the conduct of our affairs is to be continued. Germany has
apparently decided to run amuck with civilization. It is now for the
American people to decide whether this nation has any virility left, or
if it is content to sink to the level of China.
A very clear course, it seems to me, is open for us to pursue: We should
cancel all diplomatic relations with a country which has declared war
upon civilization, recall our Ambassador from Berlin, and hand Count
Bernstorff his passports. Congress should be summoned in extra session,
and an appropriation of at least $250,000,000 asked to put us in a
condition to protect our rights as a neutral civilized power. At the
same time we should invite all neutral nations of the world to join us
in a council of civilization to agree upon the steps to be taken to
protect the interests of all neutral powers and their citizens from such
wanton acts of destruction of life and property as those which Germany
has been committing and which have culminated in the destruction of the
Lusitania and of so many of her passengers.
Until now the National Administration has been proceeding not only on
the basis of "safety first," but of safety first, last, and all the
time. The time has arrived when we must remember the truth of what
Lowell so well expressed, that
'Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought
to die.
GEORGE W. WICKERSHAM.
BY THE NATIONAL SECURITY LEAGUE.
[From THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 11, 1915.]
_The army, navy, and coast defenses of the United States are declared to
be inadequate in an open letter signed by Joseph H. Choate, Alton B.
Parker, Henry L. Stimson, and S. Stanwood Menken, which was given out
yesterday in support of the plans of the National Security League. This
organization, which maintains offices at 31 Pine Street, has embarked on
a national campaign for better war defenses, and its appeal for members
and supporters is expressed by the catch-phrase, "a first defense army
of 1,000,000 workers."_
_The letter of Messrs. Choate, Parker, Stimson, and Menken contains most
of the arguments put forth by the league in asking public support and
enrollment. Its text follows:_
Careful investigation by our committees who have looked into the
question of national defense brings to light the following conditions of
affairs:
According to official Government reports, there are barely 30,000 mobile
troops in continental United States. These are distributed among
fifty-two widely scattered posts, which would make it impossible to
mobilize quickly at any given point. Even this small force is short of
officers, ammunition, and equipment. Furthermore, it has no organized
reserve.
Our National Guard, with negligible exceptions, is far below its paper
strength in men, equipment, and efficiency.
Our coast defenses are inadequate, our fortifications insufficiently
manned and without adequate organized reserves.
Our navy is neither adequate nor prepared for war. This, our first line
of defense, is inadequately manned, short of ammunition, and has no
organized reserve of trained men. Our submarine flotilla exists chiefly
upon paper. Fast scout cruisers, battle cruisers, aeroplanes, mine
layers, supply ships, and transports are lacking. Target practice has
been neglected or altogether omitted.
In view of this condition of affairs, and since there is no assurance
that the United States will not again become involved in war, "and since
a peaceful policy even when supported by treaties, is not a sufficient
guarantee against war, of which the subjugation of Belgium and the
present coercion of China by a foreign power are noteworthy examples;
and the United States cannot safely intrust the maintenance of its
institutions and nationality to the mere negations of peace, and since
we are not adequately prepared to maintain our national policies, and
since the present defenseless condition of the nation is due to the
failure of Congress not only to follow the carefully considered plans of
our naval and military advisers, but also to provide any reasonable
measure for gradually putting such plans into practice, it is manifest
that until a workable plan for a world alliance has been evolved and
agreed to by the principal nations, with proper guarantee of good faith,
the United States must undertake adequate military preparations for its
defense."
In the meantime the National Security League feels impelled to call
public attention to our deplorable condition of unpreparedness. At the
same time the league issues an appeal for public support in behalf of
the following program for better national defense:
1. Legislation correcting present wasteful methods of military
appropriations and disbursement.
2. Adoption of a definite military policy.
3. A stronger, better balanced navy.
4. An effective mobile army.
5. Larger and better equipped National Guard.
6. The creation of an organized reserve for each branch of our military
service.
All those interested in the work of the league are invited to send their
names and contributions to the National Security League, 31 Pine
Street, New York City.
[The letter is addressed to "present and former members of the Cabinet,
to members of Congress, to Governors of our States and Territories, to
Mayors of all American cities, to Chambers of Commerce and Boards of
Trade, to merchants' associations, to colleges and universities, to
university clubs and alumni associations, to all patriotic
organizations, to all women's clubs, and to all American citizens."
"Until a satisfactory plan of disarmament has been worked out and agreed
upon by the nations of the world," says a statement, "the United States
must be adequately prepared to defend itself against invasion. A
military equipment sufficient for this purpose can be had without
recourse to militarism. The league was formed as a preparation not for
war, but against war."]
BY THE NAVY LEAGUE.
[From THE NEW YORK TIMES, May 12, 1915.]
The Navy League of the United States, of which General Horace Porter is
President and which includes in its membership Herbert L. Satterlee,
George von L. Meyer, Beekman Winthrop, J. Pierpont Morgan, Governor
Emmet O'Neal of Alabama, Senator James D. Phelan of California, Cardinal
Gibbons, Theodore Roosevelt, Elihu Root, Edward T. Stotesbury, Benjamin
Ide Wheeler, Joseph H. Choate, George B. Cortelyou, C. Oliver Iselin,
Seth Low, Myron T. Herrick, Alton B. Parker, and scores of other men
prominent in the public and business life of the country, through its
Executive Committee adopted a reso
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/15480