New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-05-12
Says Food Blockade Was
Adopted as Measure
of RepriSal.
ASSERTS LUSITANIA
WAS NOT ARMED
Even If She Carried Ammuni-
ton. She Was Liable TO Capt
ure, but Not Destruction
lRy OBJ. 20 n. rrihune ]


ent Obtained a statement to-day an
sworing the German efforts 10 shift re-
sponsibility on England for sinking
the Lusitania. The reply puts all the
blame on Germany, and sets forth a
chronology OF events which purports to
prove Germany's submarine blockade
preceded and did not follow the Brit
ish embargo on German food supplies.
The statement says:
THE German government states that
responsibility for the loss o. the Lusi-
tania rests with the British govern
r1cnt. which through their plan of
starving the civil population Of Ger
many has forced Germany 10 resort to
rctaliatory measures. The reply TO
this is as follows:
AS far back as last December Ad-
miral Won Tirpitz (the German Marine
Minister in an interview foreshad-
owed n submarine blockade OF Great
Britain. and a merchant ship and a
hospital ship were torpedoed January
80 and February ]. respectively.
"The German government on Febru-
airy declared their intention Of insu-
tuting a general submarine blockade OF
Great Britain and Ireland, with the
avowed purpose Of cutting off supplies
from these islands. This blockade was
put into effect February Is.
Sunk Vessels in January.
"As already stated, merchant ves-
sells had, as a matter of fact, been
sunk by German submarine at tho
end Of January. Before February 4
no vessel carrying food supplies for
Germany had been held up by his
maiestys government, except on the
ground that there was reason to be-
lieve the foodstuffs were intended for
use of the armed forces OF the enemy
or the enemy government.
His majestys government had how
over. informed the State Department
on January % that they felt bound TO
place in a prize court the foodstufs
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 LA
bic TO capture.
"The decision Of his majesty's gov
eminent TO carry out the measures lard
down by the Order in Council was
due to the action Of the German gov
eminent in insisting on their suhma-
rine blockade This, added 70 other
attractions of international law by
Germany, led to British re2risals,
which differ from the German action in
that his majesty's government scrupu-
lousy respect the lives OF non-com-
batants travelling in merchant YES
sells, and do not even enforce the rec
ognized penalty of confscation for
breach OF the blockade, whereas the
German policy is TO sink enemy or
neutral vessels at sight, with a total
disregard for the lives Of non-combat-
ants 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:
at was not understood from the re-
ply of the German government that
they were prepared to abandon the
principle of sinking British vessels by
submarine. They have refused 10 aban-
don the use of mines for offensive
purposes on the high seas or any con-
dition. 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.
at should be noted that since the
employment of submarines contrary 70
international law the Germans also
have been guilty Of the use OF asphyxi-
ating 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 repeat
edly ram submarines. The answer to
this is as follows:
at is not to be wondered AZ that
merchant vessels, knowing they are Ii
able TO be sunk without warning and
without any chance being given those
on board TO save their lives, should
take measures for self-defence. With
regard TO the Lusitania, the vessel was
not armed on her last voyage and had
not been armed during the whole war.
No Excuse for Destruction.
"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 fair prize, but
there is no legal provision. not to speak
Of the principles of humanity, which
would Justify what can only be describ-
ed as murder because vessel carries
contraband.
The Germans maintain that after re-
pcated official and unofficial warnings
His Majesrty's government were re-
sponsiblc for the loss of life, as they
considered themselves able 10 declare
that the boat ran no risk and thus
ight-heartedly assume the responsible
ity 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 msjesty'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 10
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, fred by German sea-
man from German submarine, that
sank the vessel and caused over one