The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-01

stand the frame Of mind in which the
American position has been formu-
lated. There may be question as to the
good judgment or good taste of the
diplomacy which resorts to fencing In
n matter like this, and which takes
advantage Of the occasion to suggest
that we buy our way to our neutral
rights by procuring Of Great Britain
an arrangement which would be to
Germany's military benefit but there
can be no question that the Won
Jagow note leaves the way open for
a possible change Of attitude on the
par. Of Berlin. The note does not say
I'VE will not concede your neutral
rights unless you effect with Great
Britain that modus vivendi for con
Quoting maritime warfare which you
proposed some time ago to that Gov
eTlIleut uuu W US. WHAT thc 'O'N
does say is that the Imperial Gov
is withholding its final de-
cislon on the demands advanced in
connection with the sinking Of the
Lusitania until receipt Of an answer
from the American Government"
Whatever else 1t may be. the German
note Is not an ultlmatum.
The second consideration to which
we refer seems to have escaped at
tention altogether. Much Is said about
the triviality OF Germany's insistence
on her assertion that the Lusitania
carried cannon and was prepared to
fight. II she has evidence that the
ship was armed. or believes that the
ship was armed. the question Of fact
Is unQuestionably involved in Presi-
dent WILSON'S definition Of our neu-
trail rights. The American note said:
This Government assumes.
on the contrary. hat the Imperial Gov
| m accept. as OF course. the rule
that the lives OF non-combatants.
whether they be OF neutral citizenship
or citizens Of one OF the nations at war.
cannot lawfully or r%ightfully be put in
jeopardy by the capture or destruction
Of an undrmed merchantmen"
The preliminary reply OF the Ger
man Government is based on Its al
legged knowledge that the Lusitania
was moi Of the class of non-combatant
vessels described by the italicized
word in the American note. Now. II
il a fac. that whatever we may know
to the contrary. whatever evidence
we may have in the statements Of
Collector MALONE and other witnesses
that the Lusitania carried no cannon,
that evidence is not yet. except by
hearsay. in the possession Of Ger.
many. II she has knowledge or he
lief 10 the contrary. the right is Ger.
tainly hers. as the defendant in the
case Of a specific charge, to call for
the proof that the I.usitania was
really unarmed.
II is easy to characterize this as
dilatory tactics. or evasion. or petit
Jogging over a no~n.essential. But II
Is not a non.essential. for the un.
armed cha racte Of the ship is essen.
tlal to the justice OF u demand. II
is not evasion. for the assertion that
the ship was armed goes directly &c
the heart Of the case. If II Is dilatory
1t Is dilatory in u legitimate sense; fol
every person or Government accused
Of a specific crime certainly has thu
right to call for proof Of the fact
which constitutes Of the acknowl
edged deed the specified crime.
Moreover, in resting its case in 81
confident a fashion on a question o.
ascertainable fact. and in connection
with Its plain statement that its fina
reply Is yet to come, the Imperia
Government suggests one way II
which the American rejoinder can b'
made effective, and at the same tint
leaves the door open for a recession
on its part, upon the production o
formal evidence that the L~usltanli
was unarmed. leading perhaps to tina
peaceful conclusion Of the episode
which both the German and the Amer
lean people must ardently desire.
/, We hold, therefore. that news
, papers and individuals can rende
> better service TO the Administrator
and TO our beloved country AT thi
= time than by producing inflammation,
rhetoric. We hold that the time Ia,
not come for beating up n war sentl
, ment. Nothing Is to be gained b.
T dcnouncing Germany, by decryin'