New York Times Current History; The European War, Vol 2, No. 5, August, 1915 | Page 6

from
disavowing the wanton act of its naval commander in sinking the
Lusitania or from offering reparation for the American lives lost, so far
as reparation can be made for a needless destruction of human life by
an illegal act.
The Government of the United States, while not indifferent to the
friendly spirit in which it is made, cannot accept the suggestion of the
Imperial German Government that certain vessels be designated and
agreed upon which shall be free on the seas now illegally proscribed.
The very agreement would, by implication, subject other vessels to
illegal attack, and would be a curtailment and therefore an
abandonment of the principles for which this Government contends,
and which in times of calmer counsels every nation would concede as
of course.
The Government of the United States and the Imperial German
Government are contending for the same great object, have long stood
together in urging the very principles upon which the Government of
the United States now so solemnly insists. They are both contending for
the freedom of the seas. The Government of the United States will
continue to contend for that freedom, from whatever quarter violated,
without compromise and at any cost. It invites the practical
co-operation of the Imperial German Government at this time, when

co-operation may accomplish most and this great common object be
most strikingly and effectively achieved.
The Imperial German Government expresses the hope that this object
may be in some measure accomplished even before the present war
ends. It can be. The Government of the United States not only feels
obliged to insist upon it, by whomsoever violated or ignored, in the
protection of its own citizens, but is also deeply interested in seeing it
made practicable between the belligerents themselves, and holds itself
ready at any time to act as the common friend who may be privileged to
suggest a way.
In the meantime the very value which this Government sets upon the
long and unbroken friendship between the people and Government of
the United States and the people and Government of the German nation
impels it to press very solemnly upon the Imperial German
Government the necessity for a scrupulous observance of neutral rights
in this critical matter. Friendship itself prompts it to say to the Imperial
Government that repetition by the commanders of German naval
vessels of acts in contravention of those rights must be regarded by the
Government of the United States, when they affect American citizens,
as deliberately unfriendly.
LANSING.

German and American Press Opinion
ON THE GERMAN NOTE OF JULY 8
The German answer to the United States with regard to submarine
warfare was reported from Berlin on July 10 as having caused the most
intense satisfaction among the Germans and brought relief to them, for
the mere thought that the submarine war would be abandoned would
cause widespread resentment.
The Berlin newspapers printed long editorials approving the
Government's stand and "conciliatory" tone. Captain Perseus, in the

Tageblatt, said that the "new note makes clearer that the present course
will be continued with the greatest possible consideration for American
interests." The note "stands under the motto, 'On the way to an
understanding,' without, however, failing to emphasize the firm
determination that our interests must hold first place," in other words,
that Germany "cannot surrender the advantages that the use of the
submarine weapon gives to the German people."
The Lokal Anzeiger of Berlin commented:
"Feeling has undoubtedly cooled down somewhat on the other side of
the water, and Americans will undoubtedly admit that it is not Germany
that tries to monopolize the freedom of the seas for itself alone.
"In any event, we have now done our utmost and can quietly await
what answer President Wilson and his advisers will think suitable."
George Bernhard in the Vossische Zeitung remarked that the
publication of the note means "liberation from many of the doubts that
have excited a large part of the German people in recent weeks. The
note ... means unconditional refusal to let any outsider prescribe to us
how far and with what weapons we may defend ourselves against
England's hunger war."
What they considered the moderation of the note impressed most Berlin
newspapers. Thus the Morgen Post said: "Those who had advised that
we ought to humble ourselves before America will be just as
disappointed as those who thought we ought to bring the fist down on
the table and answer America's representations with a war threat."
Count von Reventlow, radical editor of the Tageszeitung, said: "The
substance of the proposals is to create a situation making it unnecessary
for Americans to travel to Europe on ships under an enemy flag," and
the Tägliche Rundschau said that the "answer with gratifying
decisiveness, guards the conscience of the nation in the question