Office of the Historian

462.11 T 41/20½

The Counselor for the Department of State (Lansing) to the Secretary of State

[Washington,] April 7, 1915.

Dear Mr. Secretary: The great importance of the Thrasher case, to my mind, lies in the fact that a course of action must be adopted, which can be consistently applied to similar cases, if they should arise in the future. For example, suppose another British vessel should be sunk in the same way as the Falaba and ten Americans on board the vessel should be drowned. What would be done in that case? Or suppose a neutral vessel with Americans on board should be torpedoed and the Americans drowned. What then would be done? It seems to me that, for the sake of the future, we cannot afford to allow expediency or avoidance of the issue to control our action in the Thrasher case.

Either one of two courses seems to be open:

1.
To warn Americans generally to keep out of the German war zone, if on board a merchant vessel, which is not of American nationality.
2.
To hold Germany to a strict accountability for every American life lost by submarine attack on the high seas.

The adoption of the first course amounts to an admission of the legality of establishing a war zone, such as Germany has done, or at least to an admission that the illegality is open to question.

The adoption of the second course would be more nearly in accord with our position denying the legality of the war zone and holding Germany responsible for indiscriminate attack within that area of the high seas.

[Page 374]

Expediency in the particular case of Thrasher would favor the adoption of a policy resulting in the first course suggested, but the dignity of the Government and its duty toward its citizens appears to demand a policy in harmony with the second course.

The difficulty with the second course is chiefly that our relations with the German Government are becoming increasingly strained, as shown by the questions pending, namely:

1.
The Thrasher case.
2.
The Pisa case.
3.
The Odenwald case.
4.
The Pinchot affair.
5.
The Prinz Eitel Friedrich case.
6.
The arrest of the German Consul at Seattle.
7.
The withdrawal of our military observers from Germany.
8.
The demand for an embargo on arms and ammunition.

If any other course can be found, which will relieve the present tension in our relations, and at the same time preserve American rights, so that in the future this Government will not be charged with indifference to the death of Americans, or with a failure to do its duty in supporting its rights, I would strongly favor such a course. I have given careful thought to the subject, but am unable to offer any suggestion which will meet these conditions.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Lansing