The sun., 1916-10-21
The "Mystcry'' of tho LusitanIs
Note.

It's piper of ycstcrda,
.~Thcre IS a my stcr! that should be
cleared M about The report printed by
THE SrS on Wednesday morning that
our government had accepted Germany's
proposed settlement of the Lusitania
controversy.'
This does not state quite accurately
Whit THE SrS printed from WASH
ington with regard to the Bernst"rff
tote Of February 10 proposing Il basis
for the settlement Of the Lusitania
outrage. What THE SrN said In It's
despatch of Wednesday WIS no that
our Government had accepted Ger.
many's proposed settlement of the
Lusitania controversy, but that tho
terms Of the I,crns,crff note had
been accepted.
The wide difference between the
two things should bc apparent nj II
glance not only I" the Times hut 10
every other clear intelligence familiar
with the facts Of the controversy.
The long negotiations between Count
vOS BERNsruntr and Secretary L>NS-
INC over the verbal form IT tn" pro-
posed agreement specifically relating
to the I.u>i'auiu affair ended about
February III IN II substantial agree
mont n 10 phr;i>rnl"c,. This result
was announced ~ the time 10y our
ncighhor the Timcs along With other
well informed newspapers. Tho Times
announced tn" agreement rs to
terms under ihi, headline Ou Feb.
runry 10. 1910: ~"iicriin Meets our
Lusitania Terms" Ouc or tMO minor
questions If phra>eol"gy were under
discussion when the summation Of
the proposed settlement was blocked
submarine controversy, namely. Ger
mnny's declaration uf an intention
after March ! Ia sink enemy armed
.mcrchantmen without warning. Orf
the night of February 10 the Times
obtained from Mr.. LAS,INo this state.
npnt Of Il ~ci,angc'"f attitude respect
ing the Bernst"rfr note:
ANY settlement Of the Lusitania case
must depend on how German submirile
warfare will be conducted in the future
The pos,ponemen' of the settlement.
therefore. had nothing to do with
dissatisfaction with The terms" Of the
Bernstorf note. II WAS brought about
by n new and unexpected development
relating 10 the future. not to the past.
II our neighbor will refer Ia lis back
files Il will find this historic fact
plainly stated in its own Washington
correspondence Of February 10.
printed on February IL:
"Except for the German announce
ment OF intention to sink armed enemy
merchant vessels VA sight after Marcl,
the Lusitania question probably would
have been tn mediafoIp ddjpstod on III,
basis ~ the note tVoS ~REHNsrORrF'sl
submitted TO Secretary LANSING to-day
That is from the Times. The As.
ISOLATED Press despatch of the same
evening confirmed the view Of the
Times correspondent that Berlin and
Washington had come to an agree,
ment no far as concerned the terms
Of the note specifically relating to the
Lusitania caseI
Perfected by months Of patient and
At times p~eriious negotiations. the Lusi,
tania agreement was presented to-day
by Count Won BEhNsroRrr in a form
SA%ck soouA have been acceptable "a
tAs U~9ed States had not the Germanle
Powers announced their determination
10 regard armed merchant ships of theil
enemies a. w%arships."
On the same day the Times edi
torialiy %concurred In representing the
terms Of the Won BernstOrfr note al
acceptable to Mr.. WILSON'S Admin
lstration and In d~eploring the unto
ward event which prevented an imme
diate contamination Of the agreemen,
on those terms. We quote now from
the T9m,es's editorial article Of Feb
ruary III
with amazing ineptitude German,
reopsned ths controversy Just as tn,
two Governments were on the point o.
closing II, for It was at the very con,
ference where the terms OF the L1si
tawta settlement rcre IN substanc,
ooreed upon that her Ambassador CAV,
notice Of the intention to treat arme,
merchantmen as vessels of war on anc
after March T.
Even the cursnry review %
these plain and indlsputnble fact,
should convince our CONTEMPORARY TIM
II IL locating in the wrong place IN,
mystery" Of the Lusitanlu note o
February 10. There is a myster,