462.11 T 41/23½
The Counselor for the Department of State ( Lansing ) to the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: Two events have occurred which bear upon the Thrasher case and which should be called particularly to the attention of yourself and the President in connection with that case and the policy which should be adopted.
The first of these is the attack April 29th by a German aeroplane on the American S. S. Cushing, which is reported by Dr. Van Dyke in a telegram dated April 30th, a copy of which is enclosed.26
The second is the publication this morning in some fifty newspapers of a notice to American citizens not to take passage on British vessels which will traverse the German “war zone.” The notice, a copy of which is enclosed, is signed by the Imperial German Embassy, and, as I am informed was a paid advertisement prepared about a week ago by that Embassy.
While no lives were lost by the attack on the Cushing, one bomb is reported to have struck the vessel and caused considerable damage. It is, therefore, not so serious in one sense as the attack on the Falaba which caused the death of Thrasher. On the other hand, it is a more flagrant violation of neutral rights on the high seas, and indicates that the German naval policy is one of wanton and indiscriminate destruction of vessels regardless of nationality. The fortunate outcome of this attack in no way removes the grave possibilities which may result from future attacks of the same character.
The question arises, therefore, what course should be pursued by this Government. Should we make representations in this case before we do in the Thrasher case? And, if we do, will it not appear that we care less for an American life than we do an American ship? I fear that this course would arouse a great deal of criticism, and might be interpreted as an admission that an American citizen had no right to take passage on a British vessel. Such an admission would appear to me to be a serious mistake. An American citizen legally has such a right and in my opinion the Government ought to uphold it.
The published notice of the German Embassy has an even more direct bearing on the Thrasher case. It is a formal threat that American citizens, exercising their just rights on the high seas will not be protected from the intended attack on all British ships without visiting them or giving the persons on board ample opportunity to escape.
If we do not take up the Thrasher case, in what position are we placed in the event other American passengers lose their lives? Will [Page 382] not the answer be that we acquiesced by our silence in the propriety of the sinking of the Falaba, and that Americans were publicly warned of the danger, and that, therefore, Germany is not to be blamed?
Another thing, the using of the American press to warn Americans not to exercise their legal rights, for a violation of which this Government has said that it would hold Germany to “a strict accountability” seems to me to be highly improper. It is an even more insolent proceeding than the making public of diplomatic correspondence. Communications of this sort should be sent to the Department, which can make the contents public if it pleases, but not to address the Department at all is an impertinent act, which would warrant summary action if it was expedient.
In this case, however, it would seem to me unwise to act, as I believe that would be playing into Count von Bernstorff’s hands. I cannot but feel that these two events are in line with Germany’s attitude toward the United States, to which I directed attention in my memorandum of February 15th.27 Everything seems to point to a determined effort to affront this Government and force it to open rupture of diplomatic relations. I hope that I am wrong, but I have that feeling.
For the present, however, the question is how do these events affect the Thrasher case. Do they compel action, or is it wise to continue silent?
Faithfully yours,
- Foreign Relations, 1915, supp., p. 378.↩
- Ante, p. 367.↩
- Filed separately under file No. 462.11 T 41/22½.↩