File No. 300.115P44/17
The Ambassador in Austria-Hungary (Penfield) to the Secretary of State
[Received February 25, 12.30 a. m.]
1164. Your 1116,1 February 9, 4 p. m. I have received the following reply from Austro-Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs to my note relative to Petrolite incident:
[Translation]
February 22, 1916 .
[No. 807]
The undersigned did not fail to refer the very esteemed note 5001, of the 12th instant immediately upon receipt thereof to the Imperial and Royal [Page 176] naval authorities for the necessary further consideration, and now has the honor to make known to the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, Frederic Courtland Penfield, the result of the searching inquiry in regard to the statements of the captain of the steamer Petrolite as follows:
On the morning of December 5, 1915, the steamer was ordered to stop first by a shot across the bow. The steamer neither carried a flag nor bore any neutral distinguishing mark. The U-boat displayed the signal, “Send a boat.” After the shot the steamer raised the American flag and apparently stopped her engines, but then swung around in a course toward the U-boat.
A further warning shot was fired to bring the steamer to a standstill. She turned, nevertheless, still further, and approached the submarine.
Thereupon the latter had to open fire as it was possible that a false flag was being flown and therefore the danger of an attack and of being rammed existed. It was ascertained that the shot had struck. The steamer now turned away, stopped, and began to put out a boat. As soon as this was observed firing was discontinued.
The captain came on board with his crew. The commandant pointed out to him his wrong maneuver which had created the appearance of an attack, and further also to the lack of any neutral distinguishing mark.
By the shot which struck the steamer a sailor was wounded, but so slightly that the captain allowed him to row in his crew.
The extent of damage on board according to the statement of the captain was insignificant.
After the examination of the ship’s papers the officers engaged themselves pleasantly for a while with the captain. The commandant then asked him whether he might receive fresh provisions from the steamer, whereupon the captain replied that on demand he must give provisions. It was indicated to him that no compulsion whatever would be exercised, but that rather he was only requested to deliver some provisions against payment and that it would be a “generosity” were he to comply with this [request]. The [captain] stated that [he] was then immediately ready to do so, and proceeded on board the steamer to issue the necessary instructions. He spiritedly declined the payment offered, emphasizing that it was the duty of every seaman to assist the other. The statements of the captain in regard to the quantity of provisions delivered will not be contested, as under the foregoing conditions no account thereof was kept.
At the request of the commandant one sailor remained on board the U-boat while the boat from their steamer fetched provisions. By this the commandant did not mean to exercise any compulsion so that the delivery of the provisions, which were given quite voluntarily, would be assured. He simply desired to ask the sailor, who spoke German, a few more questions, and that the captain himself should not be detained any longer.
In order to show his appreciation of the provisions the commandant of the U-boat by way of thanks sent the captain a bottle of champagne and a box of cigars. The crew of the steamer were given cigarettes. The American captain took his leave finally on the most friendly terms.
It may be recognized from the foregoing exposition of the facts that the statements contained in the very esteemed note do not prove correct in several important points and that the conduct of the commandant of the U-boat from the standpoint of international law must be characterized as free from all criticism. The undersigned desires particularly to draw the attention of his excellency, the Ambassador, to the following:
Under the circumstances set forth the U-boat could not avoid firing on the steamer. The shooting was due solely to the fact that at the warning shot from the U-boat the captain did not stop, and, moreover, by false maneuvering provoked the suspicion of hostile intentions.
So far as the demand for provisions is concerned, a requisition contrary to international law does not come into question because, as is apparent from the statement of the case, the delivery of provisions was simply requested at which time it was expressly stated that it was beyond the intention of the commandant to exercise any compulsion. Moreover it appears certain that the captain delivered the provisions most readily.
It can also not be said that the sailor was detained on board the U-boat either against his own or the captain’s will, all the less so since the willingness of the captain to supply the U-boat with provisions gave no occasion for such action.
[Page 177]In view of the usages and principles prevailing at sea, the commandant of U-boat appears to be entirely justified in having refused to answer the inquiry of captain relative to the number of the boat and the name of the commandant.
Finally, as far as the details supplied in the last passage of the report of the Imperial and Royal naval authorities are concerned, it is plainly shown that the captain felt himself in no way wronged or otherwise inconvenienced by the action of the U-boat.
The undersigned now has the honor most respectfully to refer the foregoing to his excellency, the Ambassador of the United States, for communication to the Federal Government, and avails himself [etc.]
Burian