763.72/1849a
The Secretary of State to President Wilson
My Dear Mr. President: I am sending you the memorandum prepared by Mr. Lansing.90 I have not, of course, had an opportunity to examine the authorities upon which he bases his opinion, but the arguments which he presents here are, for the most part, reasonable.
The objection bases [based] upon the fact that the Lusitania was built by the aid of the Government and is subject to being called into the Government use is, it seems to me, quite effectively answered. I am not sure, however, that I would go as far as he does when he says that if vessel were entirely owned by the British Government and yet put in trade as a merchant vessel, it would occupy exactly the same character as a privately owned merchant vessel.
As to the second argument, namely, that the Lusitania had guns on board: It seems to me that that fact would be material if she had any guns other than those made known to us. We have regulations in regard to the size of the guns that can be taken on board a merchant vessel. If it could be shown that the Lusitania had concealed guns which were not made known to our authorities, and that the fact was made [known?] to the German Government, it seems to me that it might properly have some bearing, unless we take the position that it is the unresisting ship and not the unarmed ship that is entitled to protection. I think that it might be well for us to state the facts as we understand them and express a willingness to bear any arguments that contradicts this position.
While, as you know, I have felt that we ought to do something to protect our flag from use by belligerents, I do not see that the question of using neutral flags can be raised in this case, because there is no doubt that the Lusitania was flying a belligerent flag. What Mr. Lansing says about the impossibility of ramming a submarine with a ship the size of the Lusitania would seem to be quite conclusive, although if it is true that secret instructions have been issued instructing merchant vessels to adopt, in regard to submarines, a course different from that occupied by merchant vessels in resisting the attack of armed cruisers, that fact ought to be taken into consideration. In other words, if a submarine is to be bound by the rules applicable to merchantmen, then the merchantman ought also be bound by the rules applicable when the merchantmen are attacked by a cruiser.
It seems to me that the question of ammunition is the most serious one raised and I do not share Mr. Lansing’s view that we can ignore [Page 428] entirely the question raised as to whether our law was violated. Even if we say that the enforcement of our laws must be entrusted to our own officials and not to commanders of submarine[s] of belligerents, still we must consider the moral effect of a position which would make us seem to acquiesce in the carrying of American citizens with ammunition in violation of law. I feel that our position would be very much strengthened by affirmative action on the side which would for the future prevent the carrying of ammunition by passenger ships, and, as I said in my note of this morning, which accompanies this, I believe it would have a very beneficial influence, both on public opinion in this country and on the German Government.
With assurances [etc.]
- See supra, footnote 89.↩