New Britain herald., 1915-05-12
BRITISH CONE BACK
 AT GERMAN DEFENSE
Deny Plan to Keep Food From CeT- many Forced Reta|ialoTy Measures.

]
 British official view of Gerlnany's jus 1 tlfication for torpedoing the Lusitania.
 which Germany transmitted to the l state department at Washington:
 "The German government states
 that responsibility for the JOSS of the 1 Lusitania rests with the British gov . f.rnment which through their plan of 1! starving the civil popuiat;on of Ger
 many has forced Germany to resort 1 to retaliatory measures. The reply to
 this is as follows: %@ ' Foreshadowed in December. ! ''As far back as last December Ad- 1 11,iral von Tirpitz (the German marine minister) in an interview, foreshado ow- l Cd submarine blockade of Great l Britain. and merchant ship and q i hospital ship were torpedoed Janu- ary 30 and February l, respectively. The German government oil Feb 1 ruary 4, declared their intention of nstituting a general submarine block ade of Great Britain and ireland, with the avowed purpose of cutting off supplies for these islands. This block ade was put into effect February IS.
 
 sels had, as a matter of fact, been sunk by a German submarine at the end of January Before February 4, TO vessel carrying food supplies for Germany had been held up by his
 majestys government, except on the
 ground that there was reason to be-
 1ieve the foodstuffs were intended for
 use of the armed forces of the enemy
 CT the enemy government.
 Case of Wilhelmina.
 His majesty's government had,
 however, informed the state depart
 lnent on January 29. that they felt
 bound to place in a prize, court tn foodstuffs of the steamer Wilhelmina, which was going to German port, in view of the government control of foodstuffs in Germany, as being des-
 tined for the enemy government and, therefore, liable to capture.
 The decision of his naajestys gov-
 ernment to carry out the measures
 laid down by the order-in-council was
 due to the action of the German gov
 ernment in insisting on their sub- marine blockade. This, added to other attractions of international law by Germany, led to British reprisals,
 which differ from the German action in that his ,majestys government scrupulously respect the lives of non- combatants traveling in merchant vessels, and do not even enforce the recognized penalty of confiscation for breach of the blockade, whereas the German. policy. is, to sink enemy or neutral vessels at sight, with total Sis
 regard for the lives of non-com-
 Eatants and the property of neuiraIs.
 Reply to Another Charge. The Germans state that, in spite of their offer to stop their submar- inc war in case the starvation plan was given hup, Great . Britain has taken even more stringest blockade measures. The answer to this is as follows:
 Tt was not understood from the reply of the German government that they were prepared to abandon the principle of sinking British vessels by submarine. They have refused to abandon the use of mines for offensive
 purposes on the high seas on any con- dition. They have committed var ious other infractions of international law, such as strewing the high seas and trade routes with mines, and Brit ish and neutral vessels will continue to run danger from this course whether
 Germany abandons her submarine blockade or not.
 Using Asphyxiating Gases f'It should be noted that since the employment of submarines contrary to international law, the Germans also have been guilty of the use of as- phyxiating gas. They have even pro- ceeded to the poisoning of water in South Africa. The Germans represent British l merchant vessels generally as armed with guns and say that they repeat | edly ram submarines. The answer to that is as follows: It is not to be wondered at that
 merchant vessels, knowing they are | liable to be sunk without warning and 1 without any. chance being given those 1 on board to save their lives, should 1 take measures for self-defense. With f regard to the Lusitania The vessel l was not armed on her last voyage and had not been armed during the whole war f j Liable to Capture. 4 The Germans attempt to justify the sinking of the Lusitania by the fact that she had arms and ammuni- tion on board. The presence of con- traband on board a neutral vessel does render her liable to capture, but cer- tainly not to destruction with the loss of a large portion of her crew and passengers. Every enemy vessel is a fair prize, but there is no legal provision, not to speak of the prin- ciples of humanity, which would jus- tify what can only be described as murder because a vessel carries con- traband.
 r.. q - A
 The Germans maintain that after repeated official and unofficial warn