The Imperial and Royal naval authorities instructed the
commander of the submarine boat, which participated in
the incident of the American S. S. Petrolite, to make a thorough statement
concerning the presentation of the case, as set forth in
the note of the undersigned, No. 807, of February 22,
1916, as well as on the description contained in the
esteemed note No. 7424 of June 24, 1916. The commander
declared under oath that he confirms the former
exposition as correct in all particulars, and the
statements by the crew of the Petrolite deviating therefrom, do not conform
with the facts.
The first shot was fired across the bow of the
Petrolite. When the shell
struck the water, a clearly visible house-high
column of water arose, which could not have been
caused by an explosion in the engine room. When
thereupon the steamer, instead of stopping, turned
its bow in the direction of the submarine boat, a
second warning shot was fired. Notwithstanding
this, the steamer kept on turning and thus came
closer to the submarine boat, whereupon the latter
commenced firing. The crew of the Petrolite admits that the
steamer, after recognizing the submarine boat, did
turn through 90 degrees. This statement is very
important and might clear up the incident. It was
just this persistent turning of the steamer that
gave rise to the suspicion on board of the
submarine boat that they were dealing with a
vessel under false colors, a Baralong trap. As a matter of fact, in the
course of his conversation with the captain of the
Petrolite the commander of
the submarine called attention to this maneuver
and reminded him of the Baralong case. The name Baralong was certainly mentioned. This also
proves the incorrectness of the testimony that the
commander had taken the steamer for a cruiser.
There is no proof required to show that the
commander cannot have mistaken the petroleum
steamer for a cruiser. The commander nevertheless
admits of the possibility of his having said that
he had taken the Petrolite
for a disguised cruiser, after the manner of the
Baralong; yet he cannot
remember having made such a statement.
The suspicion that the Petrolite intended to attack the submarine
boat was further strengthened by the fact that the
steamer did not, as is generally the case, emit
steam with a cloud of smoke, which can be seen
from a distance as an indication that it had
stopped. Moreover, since no American flags were to
be seen painted on the sides during the turning of
the steamer, although the steamer had in the first
place been sighted without any national flag, the
commander was under the distinct impression that
he was dealing with a ship like the Baralong. It is not correct
that the commander had admitted that the steamer
had stopped; on the contrary it is stated in the
above-mentioned note No. 807 in entire conformity
with the facts that the steamer “apparently”
stopped the engines, but then turned toward the
submarine boat.
That, as a matter of fact, the Petrolite must have turned through more than
90 degrees, appears from the statement of the
American naval constructor, that the projectile
which struck the steamer must have had an angle of
impact of 45 degrees. The submarine boat lay
stopped astern of the steamer, when the steamer
was ordered to stop. It is not feasible to explain
the angle of
[Page 290]
45 degrees by a maneuver of the
submarine boat, for there was no reason for the
latter to proceed to a dangerous position ahead of
the steamer. The boat was obliged to endeavor to
remain astern of the steamer, in order not to
expose itself to the danger of being rammed. The
commander cannot concur in the opinion that an
attempt at ramming could not be assumed for the
reason that the steamer was two miles distant from
the submarine boat, and that subsequently an
attempt at ramming would appear as hopeless, for
he holds that a submarine boat cannot in a few
moments submerge deep enough to escape an attack,
so that the possibility of ramming a submarine
boat is not to be excluded even when the boat is
two miles or more from the steamer.
Finally it is incorrect to assert that the
maneuver executed by the Petrolite was the proper and reasonable mode
of procedure. On the contrary, every steamer which
is held up by a belligerent man-of-war is obliged,
as is generally known, to stop as quickly as
possible without executing any maneuver. A captain
of a merchant vessel must know that a maneuver
such as that of the Petrolite, particularly in the case of being
stopped by a submarine boat, subjects his vessel
to suspicion, and therefore places it in serious
danger. Moreover, there were not 12, but only 5
shots fired. As to the effect of these shots, the
commander distinctly remembers that the captain
stated that the damage caused on deck was
insignificant.
After the captain had come on board of the
submarine boat, the commander, in addition to
calling his attention to the false maneuver and to
the Baralong case, also
called his express attention to the absence of a
neutral distinguishing mark.
The wound of the Danish sailor was a very slight
one; there can obviously be no question of serious
flesh wounds. The sailor came on board of the
submarine with the captain and said in the course
of the conversation that a fragment of a shell had
grazed his left upper thigh. He was of good cheer
and smiled when expressions of sympathy were
extended to him. He was a member of the boat’s
crew and accepted cigarettes from the commander of
the submarine boat.
The testimony of the captain in connection with
the delivery of provisions does not conform with
the facts. It was only a question of whether he
could let the officers’ mess have some fresh meat.
The submarine boat was amply supplied with
provisions; but, inasmuch as at the time it had
been ten days at sea, it is conceivable that fresh
provisions would have been welcome.
The captain declared himself immediately ready to
turn over such provisions and refused any
compensation with the remark that being a seaman,
he would glady assist every other seaman. The
captain let the submarine boat have a ham, 50 eggs
and about 20 pounds of mutton.
After the incident the boat remained at sea for
some considerable time, which would have been
impossible had it been dependent upon the
provisions supplied by the Petrolite. There can be no question of
compulsion, nor was any compulsion exercised in
the case of the Danish sailor. When the captain
and his men were about to leave the submarine boat
to get the provisions, the commander asked him
whether the member of his boat’s crew, who could
speak German, could remain on board the submarine
for the time being, as it was intended to put a
few questions to him concerning traffic in this
region and sailing routes. The captain without
further ado stated that he was willing to leave
the sailor on board, and he himself returned in
his boat to the steamer. Shortly thereafter the
same rowboat, manned by two sailors and without
the captain, came alongside of the submarine boat
and one of the sailors delivered a small basket of
provisions to the commander. The commander again
had his thanks therefor transmitted and handed the
Dane, who now reentered the boat, as a kind of
return present, a bottle of champagne and a box of
cigars for the captain. The captain would surely
have refused this present had the steamer and his
crew been illegally or inconsiderately treated by
the submarine boat. He had, moreover, taken leave
of the commander in the most friendly manner by
shaking hands and lifting his hat.
At the end of the inquiry, the commander of the
submarine boat emphasized that it was as a matter
of course far from his thoughts to offend a
neutral flag. It was inconceivable to him that
such a thing should be attributed to a naval
officer. Moreover, no offense can be seen in the
application of prize law. The firing upon the
steamer under a neutral flag which does not stop,
or does not comply with an order to stop in a
regular manner, is founded on international law—to
say nothing of the fact that the commander of the
submarine
[Page 291]
boat was of the belief that the American flag
had been fraudulently hoisted. The commander
rejected, as devoid of any foundation, the
assertion that he had submitted an incorrect
report. He stated that he would leave the decision
of the question whether he was guilty of a lack of
judgment and self-control or indeed of any evil
intention with entire composure to his superiors,
who alone were competent to criticize his
conduct.
After the commander had given his testimony, the
second officer and the chief quartermaster of the
submarine boat, who had been similarly informed of
the matter under investigation, were heard under
oath. They confirmed the testimony of the
commander in all particulars. An examination of
the other members of the crew was abstained from,
because they had no knowledge of the incident from
their own observation.
In the opinion of the Imperial and Royal
Government, a comparison of the depositions of the
officers of the submarine boat, herein reproduced,
with the statements of the crew of the Petrolite, gives room to the
possibility of easily explaining and clearing up
the apparently existing contradictions as to the
essential details of the incident in approximately
the following manner.
The steamer did not intend to attack the
man-of-war, but the improper—though
well-meant—conduct of the captain necessarily
awakened the suspicion of the submarine boat, so
that its commander felt himself compelled, after
firing warning shots, to fire a few shots at the
steamer, the crew of which, in their surprise at
the unexpected encounter, at once believed that
they had been fired upon from the first. The
delivery of the provisions and the detention of
the Danish sailor were probably not in accordance
with the wishes of the captain of the Petrolite but he outwardly
evinced his readiness, perhaps because he knew
that he was confronted by a man-of-war with whose
wishes he felt himself obliged to comply, so that
he only had the impression of yielding to
coercion, without the commander, however, having
the slightest thought of exercising
compulsion.
Be this as it may, in view of the sworn
depositions of the officers of the submarine boat,
herein reproduced, and which explain the incident
in a plausible manner, the Imperial and Royal
Government entertains the conviction that the
commander acted entirely within the limits
prescribed by international law, and that,
therefore, regrettably as it may be that an
American ship suffered in the event, no
responsibility is to be attached either to the
commander or the Imperial and Royal
Government.
It may finally be remarked that the Imperial and
Royal Government is in possession of sworn
statements of a number of members of the crew of
the Petrolite which agree
in important particulars with the statement of the
commander of the submarine boat. The Imperial and
Royal Chargé d’ Affaires at Washington has already
availed himself of the occasion of laying the
contents of these protocols before the Department
of State.
The undersigned has now the honor to respectfully
request his excellency the Ambassador of the
United States of America to kindly bring the
foregoing to the cognizance of the Government of
the United States and at the same time avails
himself [etc.]
