Mr. Villard, of the New York Evening Post, called
this morning. I do not know what value you attach to his opinions but he
presented the idea of calling a conference of neutral nations to discuss
the interference with trade, of which both sides have been guilty.
I explained to him that the difficulty about calling a neutral conference
was that any position taken by such a conference during the war would be
considered, not upon its merits, but as it affected one side or the
other. He thought that both sides had done enough so that complaint
could be made against the action of both sides.
[Enclosure]
The Counselor for the Department of State
(Lansing) to the Secretary of State
[Washington,]
May 9, 1915.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I have been thinking
over your suggestion that it might be considered that Americans,
taking passage in a British vessel bound for a British port and
passing through the German “war zone”, did so, in a measure at
least, at their own peril and, therefore, were not entitled to the
full protection of this Government.
[Page 388]
After carefully considering the suggestion I am convinced that this
Government is in no position to adopt that view. To accept it would
be to admit that the Government of the United States failed in its
duty to its own citizens and permitted them to run risks without
attempting to prevent them from doing so.
By its note to the German Government on February 10th35 this Government declared that it would hold
Germany to a strict accountability for the loss of American lives
and property within the “war zone.” It did not discriminate as to
the vessels carrying American citizens and property. If it intended
to discriminate, it was its manifest duty to its own people to have
said so, and to have issued a public warning to them to keep off
British ships and to say to them “If you go, you go at your
peril.”
On the contrary, this Government has permitted in silence hundreds of
American citizens to travel by British steamships crossing the “war
zone.” It has by its silence allowed them to believe that their
Government approved and would stand behind them in case their legal
rights were invaded.
I do not see how this Government can avoid responsibility now by
asserting that an American in traveling by a British vessel took a
risk, which he should not have taken. If it held that point of view
it should have declared it at the time it protested against the “war
zone.”
The Government has even gone further than that. When the German
Embassy published its “Warning”36 (a most improper
proceeding diplomatically) just prior to the sailing of the Lusitania, this Government continued silent.
It did not even then advise Americans not to sail on British
vessels. It continued to allow them to believe that the assertions
in the note of February 10th were unconditional.
It is my opinion in view of the facts that it would cause general
public condemnation and indignant criticism in this country, if the
Government should attempt now to avoid vigorous action by asserting
that the Americans drowned by the torpedoing of the Lusitania were blamable in having taken
passage on that vessel. They had the right to rely on the note of
February 10th, and they had the right to expect a warning from their
Government if it considered that it could not support them if they
took risks by going abroad on British vessels.
I think that it would be a serious mistake for this Government to
take a position so untenable and so vulnerable to attack if it
should be taken.
With great respect [etc.]
