LUSITANIA CRIME

AMERICAN COURT'S DECISION "SO FELL AN OFFENCE" The full text of tho report of the Federal District Court of New York on the sinking of the Lusitania, issued on tho eveuing of August 2-1 of this year, and signed by Judge Julius M. Mayer, was printed last mouth in the American J'ress. The decision of the Court, as will 1.0 recalled, was that the Omarder was an unarmed vessel, with no explosives of any kind on board, and was torpedoed on the afternoon of May 7, 1915, by a German submarine. Tho Court also decided that when the German Government, through the submarine commander, destroyed the Lusitania it was guilty of an "inexpressibly .cowardly act," violating all laws governing civilised warfare at ssn, and so upholds the contention of the British owners that the act was one of piracy This is the first time that an American Court has had an opportunity of parsing a direct judgment on tho matter. There has been litigation for moro than a year, involving forty suits, in which the claimants maintained that the Cunard Line was responsible for the loss of the Lusitania, some even alleging that the vessel was painted like a transport, carried ammunition and high explosives, and was improperly navigated off the Trish coast From the passages quoted Mow from the ""Sew York Times" text, of August 26, it- will be seen that Juelce Mayer scouted all these allegations. He also expressed his sympathy with survivors and relatives of victims, and suggested that the place from which to get damages was not the treasury of the Cunard Line, but that of the imperial German Government, which, he suggested, will be made to afford reparation by America and its Allies "when the time shall come" Here are the most significant "xtracts from his decision-.-

"So far as equipment went, the vessel was seaworthy'in the burliest sense. Tier carrying capacity was 219S pa.«»--gnrs and a crew of about 850, or about 3000 persons in all. The proof is absolute that she was not and never had been arm"rl, nor did she carry any explosives. She did carry some eighteen fuse cases and 125 slu'ap:i»l o.:w?s. consisting merely of empty shells, without any powder charge, 4200' cases of safety cartridges, and IS9 cases nf infantry equipment, such as leather fittings, pouches, and tho like. All these were for delivery abroad, bat none of these munitions could bo exploded by setting them on fire in. mass or in bulk, nor -by subjecting them to impact. From all the testimony ft may be reasonably concluded that one torpedo struck on the starboard side somewhere abreast of No. 2 boiler room, and the other on the same side, either abreast of No. 3 boiler room or between No. 3 and No 4. From knowledge of the torpedoes 'then used by tho German submarines, it is thought that they would effect a rupture of the outer hull thirty to forty feet long and ten to fifteen feet vertific.illy. , "It must be assumed that the German submarine commanders realised the obvious disadvantages which necesssrily attached to the Lusitania, and, if she had evaded one submarine, who can say what might have happened five minutus later? If there was. in fact, a third torpedo fired from the Lusitania's port side, then that incident would strongly suggest that, in the immediate vicinity of the ship, there were nt least two submarines.

"It must be remembered'also that the Lusitania was still in the open sea, considerably distant from the places of theretofore submarine activity and comfortably well off the Old Head of Kinsale, from which point it was about 140 miles to the Seilly Islands, and that she was nearly 100 miles from the entrance to St. George's Channel, the first channel she would enter on her way to Liverpool. "No trans-Atlantic passenger liner, and certainly none carrying American citizens, had been torpedoed up to that time. The submarines, therefore, could lay their plans with facility to destroy the vessel somewhere on the way from Fastnet to Liverpool, knowing full well the easy prey which would be afforded by an unarmed, unconvoyed, well-known merchantman, which from every standpoint of international iaw had the'right to expect a. warning before its peaceful passengers were sent to their deat'h. That the attack was deliberate and/ long cntcmplated and intended ruthlessly "to destroy human life, as well as property, can no longer be open to rtoubl. And when a. foe employs such tactics it is idle and purely speculative to flay that the action of tbe captain of a merchant ship, in doing or not <".oing something or in taking ono course and not another, was a contributing cause of disaster, or that had the captain not done what he did or had he done something else, then that tbe ship and her passengers would have evaded their assassins.

"I find, therefore, as a fact, that the captain and, hence, the petitioner, were not negligent.

"The importance of the cause, however, justifies the statement of another ground which effectually disposes of any question of liability. Jt is an elementary principle of law that even if a person is negligent, recovery cannot be had unless the. negligence is the proximal e cause of the loss or damage. There is another rule, settled by ample authority, viz., that, cvieji if negligence is shown, it cannot be the proximate cause of the loss or damage, if an independent illegal act of a third party intervenes to causo the loss. "The United States Courts recognise the binding force cf international law. As was said by Mr. Justice Gray:— " 'International law is part of our law, and must ho ascertained and administered by tho courts of justice, of appropriate jurisdiction, as often ns questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination." "While acting contrary to its official statements, yet the Imperial German Government .recognised the same rule as tho United States, and prior to the sinking of the Lusitania had not announced any other rule. The var zone proclamation of February i, 1915, contained no warning that the accepted rule of civilised naval warfare would bo discarded by the German Government, Indeed, after the Lusitania was sunk, the German Government did not make ony such claim; as late as May i, 1916, Germany did not dispute tho applicability of the rule. So, when tho Lusitania sailed from New York: her owner and master were justified in believing that, whatever else had theretofore happened, this simple, humane, and universally accepted principle would not be violated. Pew at. that time would ba likely to construe the warning advertisement as calling attention to more than the perils to be (xpecteoTfrom. quick disembarkation and tho possible rigors of the «ea after tho proper safeguarding of the lives of passengers by at least full opportunity to take to the boats.

"It is, of course, f.'isy now in the light of many later events, added to preceding acts, to look back and say that the Cunard Lino and its captain should have known that the German Government would authorise or permit so shocking a breach of international law and so foul an offence, not only against an enemy, but as well against peaceful citizens of a then friendly nation. "But tho unexpected character of the act was best evidenced by the horror which it excited in the minds and hearts of the .American people. "The fault, therefore, must bo laid upon those who are responsible for tho sinking of the vessel, in the legal as well as moral sense. It is therefore not the (Jnnard Line, petitioner, which must be Veld liable for tho loss of life nnd properly. Tho cause of the sinking of the Lusitar.ia was the illegal act of tho Imperial German Government, acting through its instrument, tho submarine commander, and violating .1 cherished and humane rule observed, until this war, by even 1110 bitterest antagonists. As Lord Mersey said, The whole blame for tho cruel destruction of life in this catastrophe must rest solely with" those who plotted and with tlio.se who committed tho crime.' "But, while ii\ this law suit there ' ; ay be, no recovery, it is not to ho doubted Hint the United State.; of America and her Allies will well remember the rights of thoso oflected by the sinking of the Lusitnnia, and when the timo shall come, will seo to it that reparation shall be made for one of the most indefensible acts of modern time."