The Outlook 1916-02-16

The text was read from the page scans by machine (OCR), so it has mistakes and its columns may run together. See the pages · About this title · At the Internet Archive

Page 1

The Outlook FEBRUARY 16, 1916 Offices, 381 Fourth Avenue, New York THE STORY OF THE WAR: THE LUSITANIA “SETTLEMENT ” It is announced from Washington that Germany and the United States have reached an agreement for a settlement of the Lusi- tania controversy. It is understood that this agreement will be reached through a formal note signed by the German Foreign Minister, Herr von Jagow, and its formal acceptance by our State Department as satisfactory. The terms and phrasing of the agreement have not been made public as we write (February 9), but they may be before our readers when this issue of The Outlook reaches them. Moreover, what seem tobe semi-authorized statements by the Washington correspondents differ widely. Thus the New York “ Tribune ”’ states the substance of the German “ disavowal”’ as follows : The German Government acknowledges lia- bility to pay indemnity for the American lives destroyed on the Lusitania. In the conduct of reprisals it isadmitted that neutral lives should not be imperiled, and the destruction of the Lusitania, in so far as it endangered neutral lives, was therefore unjus- tifiable. Another summary, that of the New York “ Times,”’ is as follows : First, Germany, while considering reprisals against an enemy legal and knowing that the United States Government regards reprisals as illegal, admits that the attack upon the Lusitania was an act of retaliation that was not justifiable in so far as it involved the lives of neutrals, and also assumes liability for such loss of neutral lives. Second, Germany is willing to pay an indem- nity for the American lives lost in the sinking of the Lusitania, and to make this reparation as an act of liability. Third, Germany gives guarantees that the incident will not be repeated by declaring that liners will not be sunk by German submarines without warning and without safety of the lives of non-combatants, provided the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance. We look in vain in either of these sum- niaries for any recognition of the fundamental principle upheld by America, that war on all unoffending non-combatants in all unoffend- ing merchant ships (not merely on neutrals in liners) is opposed to recognized inter- national law and is inhuman. This was stated clearly in the American note of May 13: It [the Government of the United States] as- sumes, on the contrary, that the Imperial Gov- ernment accepts, as of course, the rules that the lives of non-combatants, whether they be of neutral citizenship or citizens of one of the nations at war, cannot lawfully or rightfully be put in jeopardy by the capture or destruction of unarmed merchantmen. If we recede from this position, we throw overboard our further contention in the same note that our objection to the German sub- marine war methods ‘‘lies in the practical impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding those rules of fairness, reason, justice, and humanity which all modern opinion regards as imperative.” As to the ever-recurring plea of reprisal made by Germany for all her illegal and inhuman destruction of non-combatant life on shore andat sea, we will quote Viscount Bryce’s noble words of dissent when some of his countrymen urged him to meet reprisal by reprisal. ‘‘ We stand in this war,” he said, ‘“ for justice and right. We stand for humanity; and from that position we must not depart.” It would be obviously unfair to comment on the announced settlement of the Lusitania slaughter before the notes to be exchanged have been carefully scanned. This is a case where words used and omissions made might well be of portentous importance. If, how- ever, there shall be even a tacit or inferential admission by this country that Germany’s war on non-combatants of any nation is no concern of ours, then we shall have laid upon ourselves a share in the guilt and moral responsibility which will follow -the quite probable renewal of that warfare. THE APPAM A PRIZE OF WAR The decision as to how the United States should regard and treat the British steamer 349