New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 3, June, 1915 | Page 6

of January. Before Feb. 4 no vessel

carrying food supplies for Germany had been held up by his Majesty's
Government except on the ground that there was reason to believe the
foodstuffs were intended for use of the armed forces of the enemy or
the enemy Government.
His Majesty's Government had, however informed the State
Department on Jan. 29 that they felt bound to place in a prize court the
foodstuffs of the steamer Wilhelmina, which was going to a German
port, in view of the Government control of foodstuffs in Germany, as
being destined for the enemy Government and, therefore, liable to
capture.
The decision of his Majesty's Government to carry out the measures
laid down by the Order in Council was due to the action of the German
Government in insisting on their submarine blockade.
This, added to other infractions of international law by Germany, led to
British reprisals, which differ from the German action in that his
Majesty's Government scrupulously respect the lives of noncombatants
traveling in merchant vessels, and do not even enforce the recognized
penalty of confiscation for a breach of the blockade, whereas the
German policy is to sink enemy or neutral vessels at sight, with total
disregard for the lives of noncombatants and the property of neutrals.
The Germans state that, in spite of their offer to stop their submarine
war in case the starvation plan was given up, Great Britain has taken
even more stringent blockade measures. The answer to this is as
follows:
It was not understood from the reply of the German Government that
they were prepared to abandon the principle of sinking British vessels
by submarine.
They have refused to abandon the use of mines for offensive purposes
on the high seas on any condition. They have committed various other
infractions of international law, such as strewing the high seas and
trade routes with mines, and British and neutral vessels will continue to
run danger from this course, whether Germany abandons her submarine
blockade or not.
It should be noted that since the employment of submarines, contrary to
international law, the Germans also have been guilty of the use of
asphyxiating gas. They have even proceeded to the poisoning of water
in South Africa.

The Germans represent British merchant vessels generally as armed
with guns and say that they repeatedly ram submarines. The answer to
this is as follows:
It is not to be wondered at that merchant vessels, knowing they are
liable to be sunk without warning and without any chance being given
those on board to save their lives, should take measures for
self-defense.
With regard to the Lusitania: The vessel was not armed on her last
voyage, and had not been armed during the whole war.
The Germans attempt to justify the sinking of the Lusitania by the fact
that she had arms and ammunition on board. The presence of
contraband on board a neutral vessel does render her liable to capture,
but certainly not to destruction, with the loss of a large portion of her
crew and passengers. Every enemy vessel is a fair prize, but there is no
legal provision, not to speak of the principles of humanity, which
would justify what can only be described as murder because a vessel
carries contraband.
The Germans maintain that after repeated official and unofficial
warnings his Majesty's Government were responsible for the loss of life,
as they considered themselves able to declare that the boat ran no risk,
and thus "light-heartedly assume the responsibility for the human lives
on board a steamer which, owing to its armament and cargo, is liable to
destruction." The reply thereto is:
First--His Majesty's Government never declared the boat ran no risk.
Second--The fact that the Germans issued their warning shows that the
crime was premeditated. They had no more right to murder passengers
after warning them than before.
Third--In spite of their attempts to put the blame on Great Britain, it
will tax the ingenuity even of the Germans to explain away the fact that
it was a German torpedo, fired by a German seaman from a German
submarine, that sank the vessel and caused over 1,000 deaths.
CAPTAIN TURNER TESTIFIES.
[By The Associated Press.]
_KINSALE, Ireland, May 10.--The inquest which began here Saturday
over five victims of the Lusitania was concluded today. A vital feature
of the hearing was the testimony of Captain W.T. Turner of the lost
steamship. Coroner Horga questioned him:_

"You were aware threats had been made that the ship would be
torpedoed?"
"We were," the Captain replied.
"Was she armed?"
"No, Sir."
"What precautions did you take?"
"We had all the boats swung when we came within the danger zone,
between the passing of Fastnet and the time of the accident."
The Coroner asked him whether he had