763.72/1860½
The Counselor for the Department of State (Lansing) to the Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: In drafting the note of May 13th you will recall that I suggested that the word “unarmed” be changed to “unresisting.” There were two reasons for the suggestion.
First. It is entirely legal for a merchant vessel to carry a defensive armament without losing her character of a vessel of commerce. The Department issued a statement to this effect last September,85 as the law was well settled on that point. The use of the adjective “unarmed,” therefore, implied that if armed a vessel changed her status and was subject to different treatment, which practically contradicted the Department’s statement.
Second. The adjective “unresisting” appeared broader in application in that it covered not only an armament of the vessel but any use of small arms against a boarding party and any attempt to ram a submarine which had signalled a vessel to stop.
As you will recall you thought the word “unarmed” should be retained, and I think that I was at fault in not explaining my reasons more fully.
The German Government has seized the opportunity in its last note to build up an argument on the allegation that the Lusitania was armed and the German Ambassador has sent to the Department several affidavits to support the allegation. While I do not think that these affidavits, if true (which is doubtful) constitute a substantial argument for Germany since they do not show that the German Government knew of the armament on the Lusitania before the vessel was sunk, I believe, if opportunity offers, the idea of “unresisting” should be emphasized as the only legitimate reason for attack without visit.
Faithfully yours,