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:

First--His Majesty's Government never declared the boat ran no risk.

Second--The fact that the Germans issued their warning shows that the
crime was premeditated. They had no more right to murder passengers