File No. 763.72/2358
The French Ambassador (Jusserand) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 24.]
My Dear Mr. Secretary: I am cabling to my Government a summary of your letter of the 18th, received yesterday, and I shall send them a copy by mail.
The question is not an easy one. No one, as you may readily believe, is more disposed than my compatriots to adopt any practical means to diminish the inhumanity which has been the chief characteristic of the German submarine warfare. We were indeed the first to be made aware of it by our enemies’ torpedoing, to our surprise and indignation, our ship Amiral Ganteaume loaded with Belgian and French refugees. The indignation remains, though the surprise has long disappeared, so frequent has been the recurrence of similar deeds.
The chief difficulty will be: what guarantee shall we have that the contemplated agreements, which are simply a reenactment of old established rules, will henceforth be observed? Shall we have yours? If so, well and good, but I doubt you will undertake such a risky thing. The cases in which ships have been destroyed on sight have been too numerous, and no amount of remonstrance on your part has perceptibly altered the submarines’ nefarious doings. The example of the Arabic, the Ancona, the Ville de la Ciotat and your own Petrolite, shot at on sight, and many others, are only too striking.
You call attention to the fact that the defensive armament on merchant ships had been previously admitted on account of pirates and sea rovers which have now been swept from the main trade channels of the seas. They have, but their place has been filled by those same submarines which, with much more cruel consequences, have exactly resumed the sea rovers’ traditions, so that one might be tempted to say that a defensive armament has never been more necessary than now for merchant ships. If the Ancona had had some, it would not have been subjected to the heartless prolonged bombardment it sustained.
I say nothing of possible cases when a merchant ship may be anonymously sunk, no one confessing to the deed, as may very possibly be the case for the Persia, which we are asked to believe sank of its own accord, committing a kind of suicide. It can not be forgotten that sworn affidavits were presented to the Department of State by the official representative of Germany testifying that the Lusitania had been actually carrying guns “of good size,” two mounted forward and two mounted aft.
The question of the place of safety is also a difficult one. Up to now the Germans have understood by this the packing of people [Page 150] in small boats abandoned in the open sea where they have died by the hundred, more than probably a cruel, lingering death, many of them. The German note concerning the Frye announces the abandonment of this particular part of the frightfulness system of that nation. But it is not clear what or whom this applies to. It seems as if only ships under the American flag were to benefit by it. If you could let me know how you interpret the promise, I should be very thankful and it might be of real use.
I see that Japan is not being consulted, but one of their biggest ships has been sunk in the Mediterranean, and their position seems to be the same as ours.
Believe me [etc.]