CHAPTER VII

THE WORLD-WIDE INDICTMENT OF GERMANY FOR THE LUSITANIA ATROCITY

VIEWS OF COLONEL ROOSEVELT, UNITED STATES SENATORS AND OTHER PROMINENT MEN -- OPINIONS OF THE NEWSPAPERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA -- VIEWS OF PROMINENT CANADIANS.

Not even the invasion of peaceful Belgium, nor any of the other atrocities charged to the belligerent nations in the great war, stirred such universal and emphatic condemnation as the destruction of the Lusitania and over half its _human_ freight of _human_ lives. From all quarters of the globe the cry of amazement, indignation and outrage arose.

One of the first to express his feelings was Colonel Theodore Roosevelt, who said: “This represents not merely piracy, but piracy on a vaster scale of murder than any old-time pirate ever practiced.

“This is the warfare which destroyed Louvain and Dinant and hundreds of men, women and children in Belgium carried out to innocent men, women and children on the ocean and to our own fellow countrymen and countrywomen who are among the sufferers.

“It seems inconceivable that we should refrain from taking action in this matter, for we owe it not only to humanity, but to our own national self-respect.”

Atlee Pomerene, U. S. Senator from Ohio, member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said: “To Americans the sinking of the Lusitania is the most deplorable incident of the European war. Every man with the milk of human kindness in his breast condemns any policy by any nation that leads to the slaughter without warning of babes, women and non-combatants.”

Morris Sheppard, U. S. Senator from Texas, said: “The sinking of the Lusitania is an illustration of the unspeakable horror of modern warfare, and will be a tremendous argument for general disarmament when the war closes. Let us handle the present situation with patience and calmness, trusting the President to take the proper course.”

John W. Griggs, former Governor of New Jersey and at one time Attorney-General of the United States, expressed himself emphatically on the Lusitania tragedy. He said: “The time for watchful waiting has passed. No investigating committee is needed. The facts are known. Action is demanded. A demand should be made at once without waiting by the government to get the finding of any investigations or inquests. Would you hesitate to act if a man slapped you in the face? I do not say what should be demanded. That is for the government to decide. But an explanation should be demanded of Germany at once. The German submarine violated a law that even savages would recognize. I would hold Germany to account by proclaiming her an outlaw among the nations of the world. If the German government pleads that it was justified in this crime--which it will--it is then the duty of the United States to join with other neutral nations and cut her off from the rest of the world.”

Jacob M. Dickinson, Secretary of War under President Taft, issued a statement in which he said: “It is not likely that Germany will disavow the purpose to destroy the Lusitania with full knowledge of the fact that this involved many American lives. In view of the result and the warning given by our government to Germany, some proper action must be taken, or the American government will incur the contempt of the world and the contempt of a vast number of its own people.”

“An act of barbarity without justification,” was the expression of Frederick R. Coudert, of New York, an authority on international law, in referring to the torpedoing of the Lusitania. Mr. Coudert said: “I make that statement on the supposition that lives of citizens of the United States, a neutral nation, were destroyed by the sinking of the vessel. There is no justification, however, for ruthlessly sinking a merchant ship in the open seas when that vessel is not engaged in any manner as a belligerent vessel, and when the lives of non-combatants depend upon its safety. It would seem to be time for the government of this country to determine whether it will sit idly by and accept explanations that Americans were warned to keep off the steamer, or take a definite stand upon the rights of our citizens on the seas.”

The opinion of the nation on the sinking of the Lusitania is fairly represented by the following extracts from the editorial columns of leading newspapers throughout the United States:

THE EAST

New York Evening Post: “Germany ought not to be left in a moment’s doubt how the civilized world regards her latest display of ‘frightfulness.’ It is a deed for which a Hun would blush, a Turk be ashamed and a Barbary pirate apologize. To speak of technicalities and the rules of war, in the face of such wholesale murder on the high seas, is a waste of time. The law of nations and the law of God have been alike trampled upon. The German government must be given to understand that no plea of military necessity will now avail it before the tribunal on which sits as judge the humane conscience of the world. As was declared by Germany’s own representative at The Hague Congress, the late Marschall von Bieberstein, there are some atrocities which international law does not need to legislate against, since they fall under the instant and universal condemnation of mankind.”

New York Tribune: “Failing these things, no American should misunderstand the meaning of the present crisis; no American should shrink from the facts that cannot be evaded or avoided. If Germany has once and for all embarked upon a deliberate campaign of murder directed against American citizens, there can be but one consequence--the end is inescapable.”

New York World: “The main thing that concerns the American government today is not the subordinate question of reparation for the assassination of American citizens who were traveling on the Lusitania. It is the broader question of whether Germany can be brought to her senses and induced to abandon methods of warfare that are a crime against civilization and an affront to humanity.”

New York Times: “Neither in law nor in custom is there any extenuation for this act of monstrous inhumanity, no exception, no condition, can be made to shield it from the full force and condemnation it deserves and has received. And the warning advertisement published by the German Embassy here, being notice of an intent to commit a crime, is of no more avail for exculpation than a Black Hand letter of threat.”

New York Globe: “The duty of this government is sufficiently clear. In a formal and emphatic manner, not shrinking from explicit characterization, it should denounce the greatest international outrage that has occurred since the Boxer savages of China, with the countenance of a treacherous government, attacked the women and children in the legations at Pekin.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger: “As it stands the horror is almost inconceivable. There has been nothing like it before. One of the consequences of this war ought to be that nothing like it can ever happen again. Unless civilization is to relapse into barbarism, helpless non-combatants must not be exposed in such a fashion to the worst calamities of war.”

Boston Transcript: “The torpedoing of the Lusitania was not battle--it was massacre. To destroy an enemy ship, an unarmed merchant vessel of great value and power, is an act of war; to sink her in such a manner as to send hundreds of her passengers, among them many neutrals, to their death, is morally murder, and no technical military plea will avail to procure any other verdict at the bar of civilized public opinion.”

Boston Post: “The sinking of the British liner Lusitania by the torpedo of a German submarine with terrible loss of life, is the worst crime against civilization and humanity that the modern world has ever known. It is a reversion to barbarism that will set the whole world, save perhaps the little world of its perpetrators, aflame with horror and indignation.”

Boston Traveler: “With the destruction of this queen of the ocean liners and the hundreds of lives of non-combatant men, women and children, also came the ruin of the last vestige of the structure of international law and humane consideration that through the centuries mankind has been striving to erect. The very life and honor of the nation depend upon the manner in which this attack upon its integrity is adjudicated, even if any adjudication of a civil nature will be deemed sufficient to permit of a peaceful, to say nothing of a friendly, adjustment.”

Hartford Courant: “It is hard to find in the dictionary the words strong enough to fit such conduct, and the effect of the destruction of the ship and the loss of lives will be to turn public sentiment more than ever against the Germans.”

Providence Journal: “Scores of Americans were murdered yesterday on the high seas, by order of the German government. Men and women, citizens of the United States, traveling peaceably on a merchant steamer, have been sent to their death by the deliberately planned act of Emperor William and his advisers.”

Providence Evening Tribune: “The torpedoing of the Lusitania, in that it destroyed innocent American lives, was a capital crime committed by Germany against the United States. A capital crime is a crime punishable by death. And in the case of a nation punitive death is usually administered by the process of war.”

THE WEST

Chicago Herald: “International law contemplates the capture of merchant vessels. It contemplates their destruction under certain conditions. But it does not contemplate, provide for or justify destruction of the crews and passengers of such ships without giving them a chance for safety.”

Minneapolis Journal: “Germany intends to become the outlaw of nations. Perhaps we are yet to witness savagery carried to its ultimate perfection.”

Minneapolis Tribune: “The sinking of the Lusitania is outside the rules of civilized warfare. The President will have the loyal support of the people of this country in whatever course wise counsel may find it necessary to pursue.”

Denver Rocky Mountain News: “Mankind will hang its head in shame. It was not war. It is not England that suffers; it is not the relatives and friends of the dead that suffer only; the people of Germany will suffer for the deed of yesterday.”

THE SOUTH

Washington Post: “No warrant whatever, in law or morals, can be found for the willful destruction of an unarmed vessel, neutral or enemy, carrying passengers, without giving them an opportunity to leave the vessel. Germany stands indicted on this charge, and if it is proved the world will not exonerate that nation for the awful destruction of innocent life.”

Baltimore American: “Americans must and will resent the invasion of their rights, and in this there can be no division of American sentiment.”

Charleston News and Courier: “The destruction of the Lusitania has been accomplished, it now appears, with the most diabolically cruel deliberation. If this shall be established as a fact, there can be no question that the wrath of the American people will flame--and should flame.”

New Orleans Times-Picayune: “What is Washington going to do about it? Slaughter of American citizens in contravention of all laws of warfare has placed the United States in a position that is intolerable. Our people were wantonly done to death.”

SENTIMENT OF THE CANADIAN PRESS

Even sterner was the tone of the editorial opinion of the Canadian press. In many cases the actual intervention of the United States in the war was advocated. The following excerpts are characteristic of the opinion of the newspapers of Canada:

Toronto Daily News: “This fresh display of Teutonic Kultur raises anew the question as to how long the Washington government is going to be scorned and trampled upon by the most unscrupulous and barbarous race of modern times. What effect will this deliberate destruction of hundreds of American citizens in cold blood have upon public sentiment throughout the United States? Can President Wilson forever stand aside while international law and international moral standards are cast to the winds by a brutal and infuriated people?”

Toronto Mail and Empire: “The Washington government knows why the American citizens whose names are on the passenger list of the Lusitania trusted themselves to the ship despite the warnings of the Kaiser’s agents and accomplices in New York. Those American men and women disregarded the warnings, not because they believed the Germans incapable of torpedoing a passenger vessel, but because they felt that the neutrality and puissance of their nation would be respected. The Washington government cannot let these American citizens who relied on its protection go unavenged.”

Toronto Globe: “But what of the United States. Does President Wilson propose to let German submarines destroy the lives of American citizens because they choose to cross the Atlantic in a passenger ship flying the British flag? Does he still think the mad dog of Europe can be trusted at large? Is it not almost time to join in hunting down the brute?”

Toronto Daily Star: “The sinking of the Lusitania was not necessary to prove what was already abundantly demonstrated--that there is no length of vindictiveness to which Germany will not go. There is no lesson to be drawn from it except that Germany must be fought to a finish, and that all the resources of the allied countries must be marshalled for that purpose. We are engaged in no ordinary war. The very existence of civilization is at stake. The civilized world is threatened by a nation that has deliberately gone back to barbarism and given a free rein to criminal instincts. Denunciation and rebuke are of no avail in such a case. The conflict is between a powerful criminal and those who desire to live under the reign of law; and the time has come for every man who believes in law, in every nation, to fight for the life of civilization.”

VIEWS OF PROMINENT CANADIANS

That the torpedoing of the Lusitania was not an act of war in the technical sense committed by Germany as against the United States, was the view expressed by Mr. McGregor Young, professor of international law in Toronto University, who said in an interview:

“Certain acts are acts of war in the technical sense--acts, that is to say, which touch the state qua state. But the torpedoing of the Lusitania does not come within that category, so far as the United States is concerned. It is not an act such as is not compatible with friendly relations between that country and Germany. The Lusitania was a British ship, and the American passengers on board her were really an incident, as it were. Whether it would be consistent with the United States’ self-respect to put up with Germany’s action is another matter. That is a question as to which a nation must judge for itself.”

Mr. E. F. B. Johnston, K.C., gave his opinion as follows:

“The Lusitania was a vessel owned by a British company, carrying on business in England. It was not under the control of the United States. Individual citizens choosing to travel by this boat would do so at their own risk, and so far as loss is concerned, the United States as a nation would not perhaps be legally affected. But if citizens of the United States are not to be protected by their own Government, a wholesale slaughter might be justified on the ground that the ship was English. It seems to me to be a question of policy. And, as such, one would say that it was the duty of the United States to protect, as far as possible, their own citizens.”

On the Sunday following the destruction of the Lusitania reference to the disaster was made by countless clergymen throughout Canada. Varying sentiments were expressed in their sermons, but perhaps the keynote was sounded by the Rev. W. H. Hincks, D.D., pastor of Trinity Methodist Church, Toronto, who alluded to the subject as follows:

“Neutral nations headed by the President of the United States seven months ago entered a united diplomatic protest against the violation of the branch of The Hague Convention which has to do with the killing of civilians. The greatest thinkers in Great Britain have taken the view that the United States can do more good as a neutral by exerting her influence in the interest of humanity and in accordance with The Hague Convention than in entering unprepared into the war. Our duty is to pray for the President of the United States, that, surrounded by the wisest of his advisers, he may take action with other neutral nations to prevent the repetition of such a crime.”