Grand Forks herald., 1918-08-28

plete, is certain
THE LUSITANIA DECISION
In his decision in the suits filed TO collect claims
against the company for some 81 900 900
by persons who in the sinking Of the
Lusana Judge Mayer Of the federal district court for
the district OF New York seems strayed
"hat from the field of law into that Of diplomacy rhe
claims seemed to have been based the
the Of the ship subjected their patrons to an
proper risk in'permtng tho to sail in the face
the warnings which had given by the German au-
thortttes ana the old allegations usitania was
armed, and that she explosives appear Also ia
been revived order reinforce the claims for
damages
The court finds that the company was not respon-
sble because the sinking ship was an act OF piracy
and not that Of civilized government; that the
given imposed obligation the part the company
to heed them that investigation
year shows conclusvely that the
ed and that she did notarry explosives court
the opinion German having
committed illegal sinking of the snip 1t
must be held responsible for the damages
United States and her Allies will the rights
of those affected by the sinking Of the Lusitania
when the time shall will it that reparation
shall be made for Of the indefensihe acts Of
modern times"
Most Of will agree that sinking Of the 1,sita-
MIA cruel brutal utterly indefensibe; that the
German government wholly responsible it,
that that government ought among other things be
required to make good all the monetary damages that
were sustained by that crime.
But court decision is usually considered "a
ter Of technical accuracy, sinking of the
Lusitana not technically of piracy.
Piracy is act committed by individual or indi-
the orders of government. That definition not
fit the Of the Lusitana all. The commander Of
the submarine that sank the Lusitana commission
from the German government acting under the
direct orders Of that government. dictionary
tains which adequately describe atrocy
Of act the word piracy not apply IN the
strict Of the term.
l. theory that Lusitanta was armed was long
since exploded. One affidavit to that ef-
later convicted perjury prison.
where hope, still living being given
cient hard labor to keep him employed.
There has been confusion concerning the car
rying explosives the Lusitania been
denied, and sought conceal the
the vessel carried large quantity Of ammunition
form of loaded shells packed in And yet the state
ment been made and again, it is now re-
peated federal Judge that the ship carried
plosves The explanation is that ammunition prepared
and packed the Lusitania does
der "explosves' that in the
statute governing shipments.
prohibit the carrying explosives Of GER
tain kinds and in certain vessels just
as similar prohibition of the carrage
plosves passenger trains That not enact
ed for military purpose and it military sgnf-
purpose merely protect travellers against
accident the Lusania had been loaded guards
with dangerous explosives known man, that
fact the company liable our
violation of its laws and to injured persons
damages sustained but it would the slightest
degree justified authorities in destroy
ing the ship they warning Nevertheless
the German government Of explosives
and perjury in order to support it. the
issue might confused in the minds Of Americans