763.72/1859½
The Counselor for the Department of State (Lansing) to the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: The American note of May 13th83 was founded on the following principles of law and humanity:
1. Citizens of neutral nationality are entitled to traverse the high seas in merchant vessels of any nationality.
2. They are entitled to be protected from danger to life by the exercise of the belligerent right of visit and by the performance of the belligerent duty of placing passengers and crew of an enemy or neutral merchant vessel in safety in the event that the vessel is destroyed.
3. To destroy a merchant vessel without safeguarding the lives of the persons on board is inhuman and morally wrong.
The German note of May 28th84 does not admit, deny or even discuss these principles which affect the future as well as the past conduct of the German naval authorities. The note reviews the facts and seeks to raise doubts as to the correctness of those on which this Government relies.
The essential issue between the Governments is one of principle and not of fact. I can see no benefit to be derived from disputing as to the invasion of a right unless both parties agree that the right exists.
The German note appears to have been drafted with the design of drawing this Government into a controversy as to the facts and avoiding the questions of the principles involved.
In my opinion the reply to the German note should state that a discussion of the facts of specific cases would be premature before the rights asserted in the American note had been admitted and assurance given that in future those rights would not be violated; that upon receiving such admission and assurance this Government would consider the conflicting evidence as to the facts; and that the question of liability depends primarily on the principles applicable to the cases which have arisen.
The German note is not expressed in language which evinces a friendly sentiment for the United States. It shows an inflexible purpose to continue a course of action which this Government has frankly asserted to be illegal and inhuman. In view of the tone of the German note I do not think that the reply should be less firm or should repeat the friendly expressions of the note of May 13th, which have been with apparent intention, ignored by the German Government.
Faithfully yours,