763.72/1771½
The Secretary of State to
President Wilson
Washington,
May 10, 1915.
My Dear Mr. President: I am sending you a
memorandum prepared by Mr. Lansing, together with a letter to me,
suggesting courses to be pursued. While I presume you have already
prepared an outline of the note, these may be suggestive.37
With assurances [etc.]
P. S. I am enclosing also an editorial from the Springfield Republican which probably has more weight than
any other paper of the same circulation in the country.38
[Enclosure 1]
Memorandum by the Counselor for the Department of State
(Lansing) on the Sinking of the
“Lusitania”39
[Washington,]
May 10, 1915.
Possible German Defenses
First. The “Lusitania” carried in its cargo a
large quantity of munitions of war for Great Britain and was,
therefore, properly destroyed.
This fact, in order to be effective in defense, must be shown to have
been communicated to the German naval force making the attack on the
vessel.
If so communicated the information came from the representatives of
Germany in this country showing the ability to communicate with
Berlin.
The presence of munitions of war in the cargo does not in itself
relieve the German naval authorities from stopping the vessel and
permitting those on board to take to the boats before the torpedo
was launched.
The necessity for attack without warning and without delay must rest
upon some other defense, which is stated to be—
Second. The “Lusitania” naturally carried guns to
resist attack by German war craft.
This defense must be based on actual knowledge or justifiable
suspicion.
[Page 390]
The fact is that the Lusitania had no guns
mounted or unmounted and so was entirely unarmed (Collector Malone’s
statement40).
As the German representatives in this country had means of
communicating the fact of the presence of munitions of war on board
to their Government they had equal facilities to notify them that
the vessel was unarmed. They cannot avoid responsibility by claiming
that they suspected the vessel was armed, when they had the means of
obtaining actual knowledge showing that the suspicion was
unwarranted.
The first defense must rest on knowledge;
the second defense on ignorance. If the
German Government had knowledge in one case, they are chargeable
with knowledge in the second case.
Third. The German Embassy gave public warning
through the press to American citizens not to travel through the
“war zone” on British vessels.
The German Government cannot relieve themselves of responsibility for
doing an illegal and inhuman act by announcing that they intend to
violate the principles of law and humanity.
The communication was not addressed to the Government of the United
States. The German Embassy went over the head of the Administration
and addressed the American people. Such procedure was an act of
insolence similar to the giving of publicity to his memorandum by
the German Ambassador.41 Advantage was
taken of the American doctrine of the right of freedom of the press
to ignore the Government and to address the people directly. A
foreign diplomatic representative is accredited to the Government of
the United States, not to the People of the United States. An
Ambassador’s means of communication is through the Department of
State. The conduct of the German Ambassador in this case is an
indefensible breach of propriety, an insult to this Government.
If the warning had been delivered to this Government, it would have
been compelled to decide whether it should be made public. It had no
opportunity to do this. It did, however, have opportunity to advise
the American people to heed the warning. This it did not do. It
ignored the warning, and by remaining silent gave the impression
that the warning might be ignored.
[Page 391]
[Enclosure 2]
The Counselor for the Department of State
(Lansing) to the Secretary of
State
[Washington,]
May 10, 1915.
Dear Mr. Secretary: I offer the following
course of procedure in the Lusitania case as
a basis of discussion:
An earnest protest against the torpedoing of an unarmed passenger
steamship on the high seas without giving warning of attack or
placing non-combatants in a place of safety.
A declaration that the act violated the established rules of
international law and the principles of humanity.
A reaffirmation of the assertion made in the note of February 10th
that the German Government would be held to a strict accountability
for loss of American lives and property.
A demand (1) that the German Government disavow the act and apologize
for it; (2) that the officers guilty of the offense be punished; (3)
that the German Government acknowledge liability and promise to pay
a just indemnity; and (4) that the German Government will guarantee
that in the future ample measures will be taken to insure the safety
of the lives of American citizens on the high seas unless they are
traveling on a vessel of belligerent nationality, which is armed or
being convoyed by belligerent war craft.
In case the German Government refuse to comply with these demands,
diplomatic relations could be severed.
The severance of diplomatic relations does not necessarily mean war.
It may mean that a government is unwilling to continue intercourse
with another government, which has grievously offended against law
and right and which refuses to rectify the offense by making proper
amends. It is an evidence of extreme displeasure but is not a
hostile act.
In presenting the foregoing outline of action for consideration I do
not express any opinion.
There is another course of action, which I think worthy of
consideration.
The neutral powers, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy and
the United States, might jointly agree to send identic notes to
Germany and also to Great Britain protesting vigorously against the
violations of international law with which each is charged. The
protest to Germany would have to cover breaches of inhumanity [sic] as well as of international law. The
protest to Great Britain would cover illegal interruption of trade
between neutrals.
If such a course is wise, the present would seem to be an opportune
time. I do not think, however, that this would relieve the
Government
[Page 392]
of a separate
protest to Germany on the Lusitania case, but
it might give a chance to make it more moderate in tone.
Faithfully yours,
