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: