SINKING OF LUSITANIA

Maoriland Worker, Volume 13, Issue 26, 27 June 1923, Page 10

SINKING OF LUSITANIA

Held to be Lawful Act of War

Thie torpedoing of the Lusitonla by the German U boat 20 j n May, 1915 r was one of th'l9 most important means of a propaganda by which the feeling of America was roused against Germany, and which finally brought about the decliaration of war by the U.S.A. Now it turns out Uhiat the Supreme Court in New York has found it he Lusitania waas an auxiliary cruisjt'r of the British Navy, and the sinking by th e Germans was a legitimj&te act of warfare. Although the German 'Ambassador had warned civilians not to travel by tihis steamer, bcorai&e it had on. board war ma.erfal, ammunition, torpedoes, and U Loat parts, passengei's were only taken in order to protect in this way the contraband, thus endangering human life. Although the torpedoing was thereby made a lawful act of war the Germans, by the sinking of this ammuniiioai ship, weife represented to the American people as barbarians and Huns," as murderers of woms'-.n and children. Through the carrying on of an exti'emely v-olent propaganda, especially ,in this question of the sinking of the Lusitania, l;he crusade against Germany was Justified. America was induced t o infcs'rfere in the world war, and tlio war was finally deckled. It is ; therefore, of ilJie greatest importance, as "Stead's" American reporter states in ctatail, that vhxi Court of Appeal of New York, the supreme court of that State, has recently given the decis'on chat the sinking of the Lusitania wa-J a lawful act of war. "Stead's" New York correspondent In his report, says: "The New York Court of. Appeal has jus: (end of January) come to a judicial decision that the sinking of th,-9 English Cunard liner LusHanfu— which, as is generally known, wiis an auxiliary cruiser of the British Navy, and which at the time of its being torpedoes (May 7, 1915) was carryfug material and ammunition from America to England—is not to be regarded a« a piratical crime, but as a lawful act of w;ar. Th-s decision, •arrived at by the Court of Appeal, was based on an appeal against the decision, running on almost exactly the same lines, cf a lower New York [court. Th>o plaintiffs were the heirs of the millionaire, Alfred G. Vanderwho was a passenger on the Lusitania when she. went down. Tbe heirs wera suing the American Travellers' Insurance Company, with which Vanderbilt was insured for 250,000 dollars. The insurance policy contained a clause, _ according to which no claim would h,o recognised in case of death, or Injury Laving been incurred unnecessarily. The insur&nca company had refused to pay the 250,000 dollars, and such refusal - was justified by the fact that tlio sinking .of thq Lusit#ni a was done by as act of the German Navy. It was maintained that V.mderbilt hal exposed himself, of his own free will. t to the danger of death by an unnecessary passage; on a British auxiliary cruiser during the world war. Tht claim of Vanderbilt's heirs represents a case of precedence for 120 other plaintiffs, whose American relatives went down with the Lusitania. In thiese claims against the Cunard Line and several insurance compan'ts ihwre was involved a total amount of raeorly 10,000,000 dollars. In the first of tlrese court cases, a New York judge, Julius Meyer, gave the remarkaWe decision tho sinking of the" Lusitania was no lawful act of war, but a piratical cr'nia of the mad Germans against humanity. Based ;on; this ■ decision,' ■ all claims the <3anapd;i«inje di&missed, and ifc&e plaintiffs -w©re refeirred to the final- settlement trough the m&d'A* tion. of th,e American State Department. In a similiar claim, however, by an American widow of a Lusitania victim for 40,000 dollars insurance money, another New York Court of Jusifae came to the decision that th© sinking of tbje Lusitania had been a lawful |act of war, and that iha defendant insurance company had to pay, since th-e person insured in tils case insisted on a special clause being inserted which guaranteed the assurance, also in cjase of death or Injury, by acts of war. Through the recent deqislon of tlie New York Court of Appeal, all claims against the Cunard Lin e have been revived. This cas,e of precedence will certainly come to be discussed before tne m'xed Commission at Washington and In Congress."