Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1915-07-30
WILSON'S NOTE IS
FRIENDLY BUT FIRM
GERMAN NOTE UNSATISFACTORY
AS IT FAILS TO MEET THE
REAL DIFFERENCES.
Repetition of controventlon OF Rights
Of American cltlzens VIII be Re
aarded by United States as
Deliberately Unfriendly.

Washington.-The text Of the reply
OF the United States to the German
note on the Lusitania and the general
subject OF Germanys submarine war
fare was made public on July 70
at the state department.
Following is the official text OF the
latest American note to Germany
The secretary OF state to Ambassa-
dor Gerard. Department of state
Washington, July 81, 1915 You are
instructed to deliver textually the fol-
lowing note to the minister Of foreign
affairs.
The note of the imperial German
government, dated the 8th OF July,
1915, has received the careful con-
sideration of the government OF the
United States, and 1t regrets to be
obliged to say that 1t has found It
very unsatisfactory, because 1t falls
to meet the real differences between
the two governments and indicates no
way In which the accepted principles
Of law and humanity may be applied
in the grave matter in controversy
but proposes, on the contrary, ar
rangements for a partial suspension
Of those principles which virtually
set them aside.
One Point Satisfactory.
The government of the United
States notes with satisfaction that the
imperisl German government recog-
nizes without reservation the validity
of the principles insisted upon In the
several communications which this
government has addressed to the I'm
perial German government with re-
gard to. it's announcement OF a war
zone and the use of submarines
against merchantmen on the high
seas-the principle that the high
seas are free. that the character and
cargo of a merchantmen must first
be ascertained before she can law
| fully be seized or destroyed, and that
the lives of non-combatants may In no
case be put In jeopardy unless the
vessel resists or seeks to escape after
being summoned to submit to exam
nation; for a belligerent act of retail
alton Is per &c an act beyond the law,
and the defense of an act as retalia-
tory is an admission that 1t is Illegal.
Keen Disappointment.
The government of the United
States is, however, keenly disappoint-
ed to find that the imperial German
government regards itself as in large
degree exempt from the obligation to
observe these principles, even where
neutral vessels are concernd, by what
It believes the policy and practice of
the government Of Great Britain to be
| in the present war with regard to neu.
trail commerce The imperial German
| government will readily understand
that the government OF the United
States cannot discuss the policy of
| the government of Great Britain with
regard to neutral trade except with
that government itself, and that ii
must regard the conduct of other bel.
| ligerent governments as irrelevant to
/ any discussion with the imperial Ger.
man government of what this govern.
ment regards as grave and unjustifi.
able violations Of the rights of Ameri
can citizens by German naval com.
manders. Illegal and inhuman acts
however justifable they may be
thought to be against an enemy who
is believed to have acted in contra
vention of law and humanity, are
nianifestly indefensible when they de
prive neutrals of their acknowledged
| rights, particularly when they violate
the right to life ITSELF If a belliger
ent cannot retaliate against an enemy
without injuring the lives of neutrals
as we'll as their property, humanity az
we'll as justice and a due regard fol
the dignity of neutral powers shoult
dictate that the practice be discon
tinued. If persisted in 1t would. II
such circumstances constitute an un
pardonable offense against the sover
eighty of the neutral nation affected
The government of the United State.
is not unmindful of the extraordinary
conditions created by this war or O
the radical alterations of circum
stances and method of attack produced
by the use of instrumentalities o
naval warfare which the nations o
the world cannot have had in view
when the existing rules of interna
tional law we're formulated, and 1t i
ready to make every reasonable al
lowance for these novel and unexpect
ed aspects of war at sea; but it can
not consent to abate any essential O
fundamental right of its people be
cause of mere alteration of circum
itance. The rights of neutrals in tim
If war are based upon principle, no
lpon expediency, and the principle
Ire immutable.
Duty Of 5elIigerents.
It is the duty and obligation of be-
lieerents to find a way to adapt tn
new circumstances to them.
The events of the past two month
have clearly indicated that it Is pcs
chile and practicable to conduct sue
submarine operations as have charae