Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-05-10
ADMIRALTY LAWYER
CONDEMNS GERMANS
William c. Conlen Says "Mur-
der" on Lusitania Violated
International Precepts.

GermanY's regulations Of international
law require the removal of the crew Of
any vessel captured or attacked as a
prize OF war and fail to excuse the sink
Ing Of the Lusitania, according TO VIII
liam c. Conlen, OF the admiralty law
firm Of Conlen, RrInton & Acker. He is
sued a statement today taking issue with
John +, Lewis. another admiralty attor-
ney, who defended the sinking OF the
. ship.
Mr. Conlen lays emphasis on the fact
that Germany repeatedly has held In the
past that passengers and crews always
| should be removed from a vessel which
| has been attacked as an enemy ship. The
| exact declaration Of German international
law on the subject, according to Mr. Con-
| len, is:
"'2, Captured ships and merchandise
should he conducted TO the seat of a
prize court of the bellgerent captor to
he there adjudged
F" '25. In exceptional cases, ships or mer-
chandise may be sunk or destroyed IL
their preservation would endanger the
security of the warship on the success
of It's operations.
d" Before the destruction Of the ship its
crow must be placed in security. and
all papers on board and all other articles
which those who are conducting the sez-
urc shall consider important to establish
the validity Of the capture, must be
taken on board the warship.
%. In the case provided In article 25
it will ho equally proper to sink or de-
stroy, with the ship. any merchandise
which Is not susceptible Of contiscation,
and which, by reason of the special cir
cumstanCes, cannot he transported to the
warsmp, In this case the owner of tho
merchandise shall have n right to lndem-
nifty
MIR. CONLEN'S STATEMENT
Mr. Conlcn's statement in full follows;
with due respect. cannot agree with
Mr. Lewis fail to understand on
what theory of international law Mr..
Lewis would Justify the deliberate murder
of noncombatants of the Lusitania.
whether English subjects or American
citizens. II Is, of course, true that an
American taking passage on n British
merchant vessel in time of war must look
to the protection OF the vessels flag,
but ! do not see how there can be any
question that the act of the German Gov
crnment in deliberately destroying the
lives of hundreds of innocent passengers
whether British citizens or citizens of
neutral nations was a gross and out
raEeous violation not only OF inter- |
national morality. hut Of the lonE-ac-
cepted. clearly established rules OF inter |
national law
while I. of course. agree with MIR. |
Lewis that Germany had right. under |
international law. to capture and, II cir
cumstances demanded, to sink the Lust
tanIa. a practice which finds many prece-
dents in our wars of 1912 and the Civil |
War. | have yet to hear OF a precedent |
or of rule which justfes the murder |
of merchant crew or passengers on n |
vessel. merely because 1t is |
not considered practicable or convenient !
to follow the usual course of sending the |
prize to port for trial in a prize court.
The subject has been discussed more than
once at the meetings of the Naval War |
College. For instance, in the discussions
for 1905, YOU will find the rule laid down
in the following language:
THE generally enunCated rule in re-
gard to destruction of an enemy's vessel
Is, AN enemy's ship can be destroyed
only after her crew has been placed in
safety If this is to be strictly inter-
prcted, there would be considerable doubt
as to whether the deck of war vessel
whose commander fears that his prize
IS in imminent danger of recapture be-
cause Of the approach of his enemy,
would be place of safety 1t is held
that the property and persons of bellig-
erents are subject to the hazard of war
when coming within the field of opera
ions. II would scarcely follow that such
persons should be forced to assume such
particularly when It is n mat
er of doubt before adjudication by the
'ourt whether the vessel is a proper
subject for seizure"
QUOTES BETTER AUTHORITY"
However, there is even better author
ty than this to cover the present sItua-
ion, and, as the document to which
efer is not generally accessible and has
rot been translated into English, 1t may
~ worth while to give you the exact
eferenCe, ! refer 10 the proceedings of
he International Naval Conference, held
n London, that drafted the Inflated
declaration of London, which so far has
net with few friends in the present war
PRIOR to the opening of the conference,
treat Britain invited the United States
nd the various Powers of Europe to
ubmit preliminary statements embodying
heir views of international law upon
arious topics to he discussed
"One of these subjects related to the
estruction of neutral prizes before
by prize court In sub
hitting their views on this topic, the
different governments naturally in
luded an expression of their views upon
ne general principles OF the destruction
I neutral prizes, The expression of
nese views is included In the official
eport of the conference, published in
'rench by the British Government, OF
'hich ! was so fortunate to secure a
opy in connection with another matter,