After the examination of the ship's papers the officers engaged themselves pleasantly for a while with the captain. The commandant then asked him whether he might receive fresh provisions from the steamer, whereupon the captain replied that on demand he must give provisions. It was indicated to him that no compulsion whatever would be exercised, but that rather he was only requested to deliver some provisions against payment, and that it would be a "generosity" were he to comply with this request. The captain was then immediately ready to do so and proceeded to board the steamer to issue the necessary instruction. He spiritedly declined the payment offered, emphasizing that it was the duty of every seaman to assist the other. The statements of the captain in regard to the quantity of provisions delivered will not be contested as, under the foregoing conditions, no account thereof was kept. At the request of the commandant, one sailor remained on board the U-boat while the boat from the steamer fetched provisions. By this the commandant did not mean to exercise any compulsion so that the delivery of the provisions, which were given quite voluntarily, would be assured; he simply desired to ask the sailor, who spoke German, a few more questions, and that the captain himself should not be detained any longer. In order to show his appreciation of the provisions, the commandant of the U-boat by way of thanks sent the captain a bottle of champagne and a box of cigars. The crew of the steamer were given cigarettes. The American captain took his leave finally on the most friendly terms. It may be recognized from the foregoing exposition of the facts that the statements contained in the very esteemed Note do not prove correct in several important points, and that the conduct of the commandant of the U-boat from the standpoint of international law must be characterized as free from all criticism. The undersigned desires particularly to draw the attention of His Excellency the Ambassador to the following points: Under the circumstances set forth the U-boat could not avoid firing on the steamer. The shooting was due solely to the fact that at the warning shot from the U-boat the captain did not stop, and moreover by false maneuvering provoked the suspicion of hostile intentions. As far as the demand for provisions is concerned, a requisition. contrary to international law does not come into question, because, as is apparent from the statement of the case, the delivery of provisions. was simply requested, at which time it was expressly stated that it was beyond the intention of the commandant to exercise any compulsion. Moreover, it appears certain that the captain delivered the provisions most readily. It can also not be said that the sailor was detained on board the U-boat either against his own or the captain's will, all the less so since the willingness of the captain to supply the U-boat with provisions gave no occasion for such action. In view of the usages and principles prevailing at sea, the commandant of the U-boat appears to be entirely justified in having refused to answer the inquiry of the captain relative to the number of the boat and the name of the commander. Finally, as far as the details supplied in the last passage of the report of the Imperial and Royal naval authorities are concerned, it is plainly shown that the captain felt himself in no way wronged or otherwise inconvenienced by the action of the U-boat. The undersigned now has the honor most respectfully to refer the foregoing to His Excellency the Ambassador of the United States of America for communication to the Federal Government, and avails himself of this opportunity to renew to the Ambassador the expression of his highest consideration. No. 1788.] Ambassador Penfield to the Secretary of State. BURIAN. AMERICAN EMBASSY, SIR: Adverting to the Department's telegraphic instruction No. 1263 of the 21st ultimo, and to my telegram No. 13421 of the 18th instant conveying further statements of the Austro-Hungarian Government in regard to the attack of one of its submarines on the S. S. Petrolite, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy and translation of the note from the Imperial and Royal Minister for Foreign Affairs, dated July 17, 1916, on which my telegram No. 1342 of the 18th instant was based. I have, etc., No. 3458.] FREDERIC C. PENFIELD. [Inclosure-Translation.] IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MINISTRY, With reference to the very esteemed Note No. 74242 of the 24 ultimo, the undersigned has the honor to communicate the following to His Excellency the Ambassador of the United States of America: 1 Not printed. 'Not printed; see telegram June 21, 1916, Special Supplement, October, 1916, P. 306. The Imperial and Royal Government agrees with the Washington Cabinet that in the presentation of the case, as set forth in the undersigned's Note No. 807 of February 22d last on the basis of information from the Imperial and Royal naval authorities, and as set forth in the statements of the crew of the steamer Petrolite, contradictions occur in several essential points. It is evident, however, that it can not in any way concede that the naval officer in question, who in making his report acted within the bounds of his sworn duty, could have presented the case otherwise than as it agreed with his observations and impressions. It is to be understood that the Imperial and Royal Government does not in any way question the good faith of the sources of information of the Washington Cabinet. Under all circumstances, however, the Imperial and Royal Government must firmly disavow that the commander of the submarine could have acted with the intention of insulting the flag of the United States of America or violating the rights of American citizens. According to the views of the Imperial and Royal Government no cause is apparent for such an assumption, which also involved assumption that the commander placed himself in opposition to his own Government, whose friendly disposition toward the United States and its citizens is wellknown to the Washington Cabinet. Further, after the receipt of the note referred to from His Excellency the Ambassador of the United States, the Imperial and Royal Government is not of the opinion that the situation has now been cleared to such an extent that a final decision in regard thereto could at this moment be rendered by one side or the other. The Imperial and Royal Government, on its part, in order to do everything possible toward an elucidation of the circumstances, brought the statements of the crew of the Petrolite as reported by the Washington Cabinet, at once to the knowledge of the Imperial and Royal naval authorities who have placed them before the commander of the submarine for the purpose of obtaining his thorough report. It may be stated here that presentation of the case, regarded as inaccurate by the Washington Cabinet, was drafted by the Imperial and Royal naval authorities in the absence of the commander on the basis of entries in his journal and the statements of the second officer. Even now the commander's testimony in this case can not yet be taken, for the reason that he and other witnesses of the incident are at present at sea. Upon his return and examination the result of the new investigation will immediately be made known to the American Government. On the other hand, the Imperial and Royal Government wishes to draw the attention of the Washington Cabinet to the fact that it is not apparent from the very esteemed note whether and in what sense the crew of the Petrolite expressed itself in regard to the statement that the commander of the submarine sent the captain of the Petrolite a bottle of champagne and a box of cigars, and cigarettes to the crew of the steamer, and that the captain finally took his leave on the most friendly terms. Inasmuch as this detail is certainly very significant and the explanation thereof capable of throwing light on the whole incident, the Imperial and Royal Government would request from the Washington Cabinet information pertinent thereto, and, in the affirmative case, information regarding the prompting motive. Finally, the Imperial and Royal Government desires to assure the Washington Cabinet that should this be the case it would, of course, not hesitate to draw from this incident the conclusions which would result according to the requirements of international law and courtesy. Inasmuch as the undersigned has the honor most respectfully to request the good offices of His Excellency the American Ambassador to bring the foregoing to the knowledge of his Government, he avails himself of this opportunity to renew to His Excellency the Ambassador the expression of his highest consideration. No. 1332.] The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield. [Telegram-Paraphrase.] BURIAN. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 18, 1916. Mr. Penfield is directed to ascertain from the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the statement with regard to the attack on the Petrolite has been received from the commander of the submarine. He is informed that pending the receipt of the commander's statement the Department has been delaying a reply to the Austro-Hungarian note. In view of the gravity of the case, this Government requests that the matter be hastened, as otherwise it will be forced to press the case on the basis of its note of June 21, 1916, and the reply of the Austro-Hungarian Government thereto. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs to No. 4453.] Ambassador Penfield. IMPERIAL AND ROYAL Vienna, September 9, 1916. In pursuance of his note No. 3458 of July 17, 1916, the undersigned has the honor respectfully to submit to his excellency the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of the United States of America, Mr. Frederic Courtland Penfield, the following: The Imperial and Royal naval authorities instructed the commander of the submarine boat which participated in the incident of the American steamship 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 statement by the crew of the Petrolite deviating therefrom do not conform with the facts. The commander stated in detail as follows: 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°. 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 can not 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 can not 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 |