have injured the vessel by exploding. They certainly do not come under the classification of ammunition. The United States authorities would not permit us to carry ammunition, classified as such by the military authorities, on a passenger liner. For years we have been sending small-arms cartridges abroad on the Lusitania.

"The Lusitania had 1,250 steel shrapnel cases, but they were empty. There was no explosive of any sort aboard. As to the report that the Lusitania had guns aboard, I cannot assert too strongly that it is positively untrue. There were no guns whatever aboard. The Lusitania was an unarmed passenger steamer. Furthermore, she never has been armed, and never carried an unmounted gun or rifle out of port in times of war or peace."

"Then you unqualifiedly declare that the Lusitania was not armed against submarines?" he was asked.

was

"The ship," Mr. Winter replied, as defenseless against undersea and underhanded attack as a Hoboken ferryboat in the North River would be against one of the United States battleships."

Captain D. J. Roberts, Marine Superintendent of the Cunard Line, said yesterday that he was prepared to testify under oath in any court and from his personal knowledge that the Lusitania did not carry any guns when she sailed from New York at 12:28 P. M. on May 1 for Liverpool.

"It is my invariable custom to go through the passenger ships every day they are in port," he said, "and I made my last inspection of the Lusitania on sailing day at 7 A. M. There were no guns or plates or mountings where guns could be fitted on the Lusitania, nor have there been since she has been in the service. The ship has never carried troops or been chartered by the British Government for any purpose whatsoever.

"In order that there should be no mistake about the ensigns flown by British merchant vessels, the Admiralty ordered after war had been declared that only the red ensign, a square red flag with the union jack in the corner, should be shown at the stern of a merchantman, and the white St. George's ensign by all

war vessels, whether armored or unarmored. These are the only two flags that are hoisted on British ships today, with the exception of the company's house flag, when they are entering port or passing at sea, and the mail flag on the foremast, which every steamship flies coming in to denote that she has mails on board.

"Before the war both the Lusitania and the Mauretania flew the blue ensign of the Royal Naval Reserve, which any British merchant vessel is allowed to do if her commander and officers and twothirds of the crew belong to the reserve." NEUTRALS IN THE WAR ZONE.

[German Foreign Office Note.] [Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES.] WASHINGTON, May 11.-Secretary Bryan received from Ambassador Gerard at Berlin today the text of an official declaration by the German Government of its policy with respect to American and other neutral ships meeting German submarines in the naval war zone around the British Isles and in the North Sea. This declaration was handed to Mr. Gerard by the German Foreign Office, which explained that it was being issued as a circular statement" in regard to "mistaken attacks by German submarines on commerce vessels of neutral nations."

66

First-The Imperial German Government has naturally no intention of causing to be attacked by submarines or aircraft such neutral ships of commerce in the zone of naval warfare, more definitely described in the notice of the German Admiralty staff of Feb. 4 last, as have been guilty of no hostile act. On the contrary, the most definite instructions have repeatedly been issued to German war vessels to avoid attacks on such ships under all circumstances. Even when such ships have contraband of war on board they are dealt with by submarines solely according to the rules of international law applying to prize warfare.

Second-Should a neutral ship nevertheless come to harm through German submarines or aircraft on account of an unfortunate (X) [mistake?] in the

above-mentioned zone of naval warfare, the German Government will unreservedly recognize its responsibility therefor. In such a case it will express its regrets and afford damages without first instituting a prize court action.

Third-It is the custom of the German Government as soon as the sinking of a neutral ship in the above-mentioned zone of naval warfare is ascribed to German war vessels to institute an immediate investigation into the cause. If grounds appear thereby to be given for association of such a hypothesis the German Navy places itself in communication with the interested neutral Government so so that the latter may also institute an investigation. If the German Government is thereby convinced that the ship has been destroyed by Germany's war vessels, it will not delay in carrying out the provisions of Paragraph 2 above. In case the German Government, contrary to the viewpoint of the neutral Government, is not convinced by the result of the investigation, the German Government has already on several occasions declared itself ready to allow the question to be decided by an international investigation commission, according to Chapter 3 of The Hague Convention of Oct. 18, 1907, for the peaceful solution of international disputes.

This circular is understood to have been rather reassuring to high officials of the United States Government, although it does not cover the attitude of the German Government toward the treatment to be accorded to Americans and other neutral noncombatants, men, women, and children, on board vessels flying the flag of England, France, or Russia. The absence of any allusion to the principle involved in the Lusitania case is believed here to mean that the statement was prepared and was ready for promulgation before the destruction of the Lusitania on Friday. Several days usually have been required for messages to come to Washington from Ambassador Gerard, by roundabout cable relay route, and it is believed that this dispatch is no exception in this respect.

DR. DERNBURG'S DEFENSE.

The sinking of the Lusitania as a manof-war was justified by Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, late German Colonial Secretary and recognized as quasi-official spokesman of the German Imperial Government in the United States, in a statement issued in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 8, 1915. The statement reads:

Great Britain declared the North Sea a war zone in the Winter. No protest was made by the United States or any neutral. Great Britain held up all neutral ships carrying non-contraband goods, detaining them, buying or confiscating their cargoes.

Great Britain constantly changed the contrband lists, so no foodstuffs of any kind have actually reached Germany since the war began. International law says foodstuffs destined for the civil population must pass. It does not recognize any right to starve out a whole people.

As a consequence, and in retaliation, Germany declared the waters around England a war zone, and started a submarine warfare. It became known in February that British ships were flying the American flag as a protection.

Great Britain replied by officially declaring its purpose to starve 120,000,000 Germans and Austrians. The United States very thoughtfully tried to mediate, proposing that foodstuffs should be passed and submarine warfare be stopped.

Germany agreed; England turned the proposal down. Then, in order to protect American passengers, they were warned by public advertisement of the danger of sailing under the flag of a belligerent.

Vessels carrying contraband of war are liable to destruction unless they can be taken to a port of the country that captures them. The right of search need not be exercised if it is certain such ships carry contraband.

Oil is contraband, like war ammunition and all metals. The master of the Gulflight (an American oil tank steamer sunk recently) swore before customs officials to his cargo of oil for France.

With deep emotion we learn of the destruction of the Lusitania, in which countless men lost their lives. We lament with sincere hearts their hard fate, but we know we are completely devoid of blame.

We may be sure that through the English telegrams communicated to the world indignation will again be raised against Germany, but we must hope that calm reflection will later pronounce the verdict of condemnation against the British Admiralty.

The many who are now sorrowing may raise complaint against Winston Spencer Churchill, First Lord of the British Admiralty, who, by conscienceless instructions which must bring him the curse of mankind, conjured up this cruel warfare. *

The Lusitania was a warship on the list of English auxiliary cruisers and carried armament of twelve strongly mounted guns. She was more strongly mounted with guns than any German armored cruiser. As an auxiliary cruiser she must have been prepared for attack. Count von Reventlow, the naval expert, says, in the Tages Zeitung:

The American Government probably will make the case the basis for diplomatic action, but it could have prevented the loss of American lives by appropriate instructions. It is the American Government's fault, therefore, if it did not take Germany's war zone declarations seriously enough.

The writer declares, further, that Germany had full and trustworthy information that the Lusitania carried a cargo of war material, as she had on previous trips.

The Lokal Anzeiger also assumes that the steamship was carrying munitions of war, and maintains that this and "the fact that she was a fully armed cruiser completely justifies her destruction under the laws of warfare."

The Kreuz Zeitung, after referring to the warning issued by Ambassador von Bernstorff, adds:

If citizens of neutral States were lost with the sunken ship they must bear the full blame.

Some papers further testify the sinking

of the steamer because on a previous occasion she had resorted to the expedient of flying the American flag. Germania, the clerical organ, deprecates probable attempts by Germany's antagonists to make moral capital against her out of the sinking of the Lusitania and the loss of life. The paper says:

We can look forward to such efforts with a clear conscience, for we have proceeded correctly. We can only answer to those who place their sympathies above justice, that war is war.

An editorial article in the Frankfurter Zeitung was quoted in an Amsterdam dispatch to The London Times of May 10, as follows:

The Lusitania has been sent to the is bottom. That the announcement which must arouse measureless horror among many thousands.

A giant ship of the British merchant fleet, a vessel of over 31,000 tons, one of the most famous of the fast steamers of the British-American passenger service, a ship full of people, who had little or nothing to do with the war, has been attacked and sunk by a German torpedo. This is the announcement which in a few words indicates a mighty catastrophe to a ship with 2,000 people aboard.

We always feel that it is tragic and all too hard when war inflicts wounds on those who do not carry its weapons.

We lament similarly the fate of the unfortunate villages and towns where war rages and the innocent victims of bombs who, far behind the trenches, and often without our being able to estimate the meaning of this murder, are snatched from the ranks of the unarmed.

Much more terrible is the fate of those who on the high sea, many hundreds in number, suddenly see death before their

eyes.

A German war vessel has sunk the ship. It has done its duty.

For the German Navy the sinking of the Lusitania means an extraordinary success. Its destruction demolished the last fable with which the people of England consoled themselves; on which hostile shipping relied when it dared to defy the German warnings.

We do not need to seek grounds to justify the destruction of a British ship. She belonged to the enemy and brought us harm. She has fallen to our shots.

The enemy and the whole world were warned that he who ventured to trust himself within her staked his life.

The London Daily Mail of May 16 quotes from Der Tag the following ar ticle by Herr von Rath, who is described as a favorite spokesman in the Wilhelmstrasse:

President Wilson is very much troubled by the drowning of so many American citizens, and we Germans sincerely share his feelings, but we see in the Lusitania affair one of the many cruel necessities which the struggle for existence brings with it.

If, as English reports try to make us believe, Mr. Wilson is now meditating revenge, we will not disturb him in this occupation, but would only hope that his demands will be addressed to the right and not the wrong quarters.

The right address is England. On the German side, everything was done to warn American travelers from the impending peril, while British irresponsibility and arrogance nullified the effect of the German admonition.

Mr. Wilson is certainly in a precarious position. After showing himself weak in the face of the long and ruthless British provocations, he has to play the strong man with Germany. Otherwise he will lose what prestige he has left, and he knows that in the background the pretender to the throne, Mr. Roosevelt, is lurking.

But what are the gallant shouters in the United States thinking about? Should the United States send troops to take part in the fighting in Flanders? The gigantic losses of their Canadian neighbors should not exactly encourage them, from a military standpoint. Moreover, the United States are so weak that they have never even been able to impose their will on Mexico or to do anything to the still more unpleasant Japanese than to clench their fists in their pockets.

Should their superdreadnoughts cross

the Atlantic Ocean? England has not even useful work for her own ironclads in this war. What would American warships do?

How about our Germanic brethren in the United States-the half million German and Austro-Hungarian reservists who are not permitted to take part in the defense of their home lands? Will they stand with folded arms and see their fatherlands attacked?

What the United States has already done to support our enemies is, apart from interference with private property, the worst which she could do to us. We have nothing more to expect or to fear. Therefore, the threats of our erstwhile friend Roosevelt leave us quite cold.

Let the United States also preserve up from warmed-up humanitarian platitudes, for her craven submission to England's will is promoting an outrageous scheme to deliver Germany's women and children to death by starvation.

A wireless dispatch from Berlin to Sayville, L. I., on May 16 reported this out giving by the Overseas News Agency:

The whole German press, particularly the Cologne Gazette, the Frankfort Gazette, and the Berliner Tageblatt, deeply regret the loss of American lives caused by the sinking of the Lusitania.

The Tages Zeitung and other newspapers state that the responsibility rests with the British Government, which, attempting to starve the peaceful civilian population of a big country, forced Germany in self-defense to declare British waters a war zone; with shipowners, who allowed passengers to embark on an armed steamer carrying war material, and neglected German warnings against entering the war zone, and, finally, with the English press.

Heartfelt sympathy is expressed by the German press and public for the victims of the catastrophe and their relatives.

From The Hague, via London, on May 19 a special cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES reported that, acting apparently under official instructions, several leading German newspapers had on that day joined in a fierce attack on the United