LUSITANIA CRIME.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16406, 28 December 1918, Page 12

LUSITANIA CRIME.

AMERICAN COURT'S DECISION,

"SO FELL AN OFFENCE."

The full text of the report of the Federal District Court of New York on the sinking of the Lusitania, issued on the evening of 24th August of this year,

and signed by Judge Julius M. Mayer, was printed last month in the American Pre?*. The decision of the Court, as will bf recalled, was that the Cunarder was

an unarmed vessel, with no explosives of any kind on board, and was torpedoed on the afternoon of 7tli May, 1915, by a German submarine. The Court also decided- that when the German Government, through the submarine conynander, destroyed the Lusitania it was guiity of an • "inexpressibly cowardly act." violating all laws governing civilised warfare at i-ea, and so upholds the contention of the British owners that tli-s act was one of piracy. This is the lirst time that an American Court hats had ap o'ppoftunity of" passing a direct judgment on the matter. There been litigation for more than a year, involving forty puits, in which the claimants maintained that the Cunard Jine was responsible for the loss of the Lusitania, some oven alleging that the vessel wis painted like a transport, carried ammunition' and' high explosives, and was improperly navigated off the Irish coast. From the passages quoted below from tho "'New } ork Times ' text, of 20th August, it will be seen that Judge Mayer scouted ■ all these allegations. He "alio expressed his sympathy with survivors and relatives of victims, and suggested .that tho place from which to get damages was not the treasury, of the Cunard Line, but that of the Imperial German Government, which, lie suggested, will be made to afford reparation by America and its Allies, "when the time shall come." Here are the most significant extracts from liis decision:: — "So far as equipment went, the vessel was seaworthy in the highest sense. Her carrying capacity was passengers and a crew of about. 850, or about cOQO rersons in all. The proof is absolute that she was- not and never had been armed,, nor did she carry any explosives. She did carry some eighteen fuse eases and 125 shrapnel cases, consisting merely. of empty shells, without :.any powder charge. 4200-eases of safety cartridges, and 189 cases of infantry equipment, such as leather fittings, pouches, and tho like. All theso were for delivery abroad, but none of these munitions could be exploded by setting them on. fire in mass or in bulk, nor by subjecting them to - impact. From all the testimony it may be reasonably concluded that one torpedo struck on the starboard side somewhere abreast of N0,2 boiler room and the other on the samo 'side, either abreast of No. 3 boiler room or between No. 3 and No.' 4. From knowledge of the torpedoes then used by the German submarines, it is thought that they would effect l rupture of the outer hull thirty to forty feet; long and ten to, fifteen feet verticallv. :

<; A scientific education is not necessary to appreciate that it is much more difficult for, a submarine successfully to hit a naval vessel than an unarmed merchant ship. The destination of a naval vessel is usually not known, that of tho Lusitania was. A submarine, commander,, when attacking an armed vessel, knows that he, as the attacker, may, and likely will,. also be attacked by his armed opponent. The Lusi-t-ania was,,helpless •in that regard' as a; peaceful, citizen > suddenly set : upon by murderous assaila.nt.si * There are other advantages of the naval vessel over the merchant ship which need nob bo referred to. ....

"It must 'be assumed that the German. submarine cpmraanders ... realised the obvious disadvantages which necessarily attached to the Lusitania, and, if; she had evaded,one submarine, who' can say ■ -might have, happened five minutes'later? • If there was, in fact, a third torpedo from the Lusitania's port -side, then that incident would strongly suggest that, in the immediate vicinity of the ship, there were at least two submarines.

"It must be remembered also that the Lusitania was still.in the open sea, considerably distant from tho, places-;.'of theretofore, submarine activity and comfortably well off the Old Head of Kinsale, from which point it was about 140 miles to the Scilly Islands, and that she was nearly 100 miles from the entrance to St. George's Channel, the. first channel she would enter on lier way to Liverpool... ''No trans-Atlantic passenger liner, and certainly none carding American citizens, had been torpedoea up to that . m Pj , . submarines, therefore, could lay their plans with facility to destroy - the vessel somewhere oh. 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 v? bad_ tho right to expect a warning before its peaceful passengers were sent to their death. That the attack, was deliberate and long contemplated and intended • ruthlessly to destroy human life, as well as property, can no longer bo open to doubt. And when a foe employs such tactics it is idle and purely speculative to say that the action of ..the captain ,of a. merchant ship, -in doing or not doing, something or. in taking one course and not another, was a contributing cause of disaster, or that had tho captain not done what he did or had he done something else, then that the ship and her passengers would have evaded their assassins.-" :

''I findj therefore, as. a fact; that the captain and,- hence,, the petitioner, were not negligent. ".The importance of tho cause, however, justifies the statement of another ground which effectually disposes of any question of liability. It is an elementary principle of law that even if a person is negligent, recovery cannot be had unless the negligence is the proximate cause of the loss or damage. There is another rule, settled by ample authority, viz., that, even if negligence is shown, it cannot bo the proximate cause of the loss, or damage, if an independent illegal act of a third party intervenes to cause the Ipss... . ; .....

"Tho question, then, is whether the act of tho German submarine commander was'an illegal act." • ••

"The United - States, courts recognise the binding forcc of international law. As was said by Mr Justice Gray: — " 'International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, 'as ofton as questions of, right .depending, upon it are duly presented for their-determina-tion.

"While acting Contrary to its official statements, yet the Imperial German Government;rebognised the same rule as the tTnitied States, and prior to the sinking of the Lusitania had not announced any other rule. The war zone proclamation of February 4th, 1915, contained no •warning that the accepted rule of civilised naval warfare would be discarded . by the. German Government. , Indeed* ' after. .the Lusitania was sunk, the German Government did not make any-such'claim; as late as May 4th, 1916. Germany did not dispute the applicability of the rule. So, when the Lusitania sailed from JS'ew Yotk her owner and master were justified in believing that', whatever else had theretofore happened, this simple, humane, and uniuniversally accepted principle would not be violated-. Few at .that time would be likely to construe the warning advertisement as calling- 1 attention to more than tho perils to be expected from

quick disembarkation and the possible rigors of the sea after the proper safeguarding of the lives of passengers by at least full opportunity to take to the boats.

"It is, of course, easy now in the light of many later events, added to preceding acts, to look back and say that the Cunard Line and its captain should have known that the German Government would authorise or permit so shocking a breach of international law and 60 foul an offence, riot only against' an enemy, but as well against peaceful citizens of ?. jJben friendly nation.

"Hut the unexpected character of the aet was best evidenced by the horror which it excited in the minds and hearts of the American people. '"The fault, therefore, must be laid upon those who are responsible for the sinking of the vessel, in the legal as well as moral sense. It is therefore not the Cunard Line, petitioner, which must bo held liable for the loss of life and pronerty. The cause of the sinking of the Lusitania was the illegal act of the Imperial German Government, ■ acting through its instrument, the submarine commander, .and violating a, cherished and humane rule observed, until this war, by even the bitterest antagonists. As Lord Mersev said, 'The whole blame for the cruel destruction of life in this catastrophe must rest solely with those who plotted and with those who committed the crime/

"But, while in "this law suit there may be no recovery, it is not to be doubted that the United States of America and her Allies will well remember the rights of those .affected ■ by the sinking of the Lusitania, and when the time.shall come, will see to it that reparation shall be made for one of the most indefensible acts of modern times."