LUSITANIA CRIME

Evening Post, Volume XCVI, Issue 153, 26 December 1918, Page 2

LUSITANIA CRIME

AMERICAN COURT'S

DECISION

"SO FELL AN OFFENCE"

The full test of the report of the Federal District Court of New York on the sinking of the Lusitania, issued on the evening of 24th Auguot of this year, and signed by Judge Julius M. Mayer, v/as printed last month in the 'American preES. The decision of the court, as will be recalled, was that the Cunarder was an unarmed vessel, with no explosives of any kind on board, and was torpedoed on the afternoon of 7th May. 1918, by a German submarine. The court also decided that when the German Government, throught the submarine commander, destroyed the !Lusitama it was guilty of an "inexpressibly enwardly act," violating all laws governing civilised warfare at sea, 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 passing a direct judgment on the matter. There has been litigation for more than a yeai, involving forty suits, in which the claimant!* maintained that' the Cunard line was responsible for the loss of the Luenania, i-ome oven alleging that the vessel was painted like a transport, carried ammunition end high explosives, and was improperly navigated off the Irish coast. From the passages quoted below from the New York Times text, of 26th August, it will be seen that Judge Mayer scouted all these allegations. He also expressed his sympathy with survivors and relatives of victims, and suggested that the placa from which to get damages was not the treasury of the Gunard Line, but that of the Imperial German Government, which, he suggested, will be made, to afford reparation by America and it« Allies "when the time shall come." Here .iu'e the most significant extracts from his decision :—

"So far as equipment went, the vessel was seaworthy in the highest sense. Her carrying capacity was 2198 passengers and a crew of about 850, or about 3000 persons in all. The proof 'is absoluto that she was not and never had been armed, nor did she carry any explosives. She .did carry some eighteen fuse cases and 125 shrapnel' cases, consisting merely ■of emjpty. shells, withoijt any powder. charge, 4200 cases of safety cartridges, and 189 cases of infantry equipment, such as leather fittings, pouches and the like. All these 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. Prom all the testimony it 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 boilsv room or between No. 3 and No 4. From knowledge pf the torpedoes then used by the Gtwnan submarines, it is thought that they would effect a rupture of the outc hull thirty to forty feet long and ten to fifteen feet vertically. "A. scientific education is not necessary to appreciate that it is much more difficult ior a submarine successfully to hit a nival vessel than an unarmed merchant ship. The destination of a naval vessel is usually not known, that of the Luaitania was. A submarine commander, whan attacking an armed vessel, knows that he, as the attacker,- may, and likely will', also be attacked by his armed opponent. The Lusitania was as helpless in'that regard as a 'peaceful citizen suddenly 1 set upon by murderous assailants. There are other advantages of the naval vessel over the merchant ship which need not be referred to;

"It nlust be assumed that tlie German submarine commanders realised the cbvious disadvantages which necessarily attached to the Lusiiania,' and, if she had evaded one submarine, who can say what might have happened five minutes later? If there was, m fact, a third torpedo fired from the Lusitania's port side, t.han 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 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 ghe 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 ba afforded by an unarmed, unconvoyed, well-known merchantman, which from every standpoint of international law had the 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 be opon 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 the 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 find, therefore, as a fact that the captain and, hence, the petitioner, wore not negligent. "The importance of the cause, howevei. 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 causa 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 csu33 ot the, loss or damage, if an independent illegal act of a third party intervenes to cause the loss. . „ "The question, then. jS whether the act of tho German submarine' commander was au Illegal act.

"The United States courts recognise the binding force of international lav.' As was said by Mr. Justice Gray ;-- ---" •International law is part, of our law, and must bo ascertained and admin ■istered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented fov their determination "While acting contrary to its official statements, yet the Imperial German Government recognised the same rule as the United States, and prior to the sinking of the Lusitania had not announced any other rule. The war zone proclamation of Ith February, 1015, 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 ith May, 1916, Germany did not dispute the applicability of the rule. So when the Lusitania sailed from New York her owner and master were justified in believing that, whatever else had theretofore happened, this simple, humane, and uriver-

sally accepted principle would not be violated. Few at that time would be likely to construe the warning advertisement as calling- attention to mora than the perils to be expected from quick disembarkation and the possible rigors of tho 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 Lino and its captain should havo known that the German Government would authorise or permit co 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 the 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 be laid upon those who axe responsible for the sinking of the vessel, in the legal as well as moral sense. It is therefore not the Cunard Line, petitioner, which njnst be held liable for the loss of life and property. 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 thio war, by even the bitterest antagonists. As Lord .Mersey said, 'The whole blame for the cruel destruction of life in this catastrophe must re3t solely with those who plotted and with thoss who com mitted the crime'

"But, while in this law suit there may bo no recovery, it is not to bo doubted that the United States of America and her Allies will well remember the right* 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 modem times."