That the torpedoing of the Lusitania was not an act of war in the technical sense committed by Germany as against the United States, was the view expressed by Mr. McGregor Young, professor of international law in Toronto University, who said in an interview:
“Certain acts are acts of war in the technical sense—acts, that is to say, which touch the state qua state. But the torpedoing of the Lusitania does not come within that category, so far as the United States is concerned. It is not an act such as is not compatible with friendly relations between that country and Germany. The Lusitania was a British ship, and the American passengers on board her were really an incident, as it were. Whether it would be consistent with the United States’ self-respect to put up with Germany’s action is another matter. That is a question as to which a nation must judge for itself.”
Mr. E. F. B. Johnston, K.C., gave his opinion as follows:
“The Lusitania was a vessel owned by a British company, carrying on business in England. It was not under the control of the United States. Individual citizens choosing to travel by this boat would do so at their own risk, and so far as loss is concerned, the United States as a nation would not perhaps be legally affected. But if citizens of the United States are not to be protected by their own Government, a wholesale slaughter might be justified on the ground that the ship was English. It seems to me to be a question of policy. And, as such, one would say that it was the duty of the United States to protect, as far as possible, their own citizens.”
On the Sunday following the destruction of the Lusitania reference to the disaster was made by countless clergymen throughout Canada. Varying sentiments were expressed in their sermons, but perhaps the keynote was sounded by the Rev. W. H. Hincks, D.D., pastor of Trinity Methodist Church, Toronto, who alluded to the subject as follows:
“Neutral nations headed by the President of the United States seven months ago entered a united diplomatic protest against the violation of the branch of The Hague Convention which has to do with the killing of civilians. The greatest thinkers in Great Britain have taken the view that the United States can do more good as a neutral by exerting her influence in the interest of humanity and in accordance with The Hague Convention than in entering unprepared into the war. Our duty is to pray for the President of the United States, that, surrounded by the wisest of his advisers, he may take action with other neutral nations to prevent the repetition of such a crime.”
CHAPTER VIII
AMERICA’S PROTEST AGAINST UNCIVILIZED WARFARE
[PRESIDENT WILSON’S GREAT RESPONSIBILITY] — [THE NOTE TO GERMANY] — [ATTACKS CALLED CONTRARY TO RULES OF WARFARE] — [WARNING TO GERMANY RECALLED] — [SUBMARINE WARFARE ON COMMERCE CONDEMNED] — [PUBLISHED WARNING DECLARED NO EXCUSE FOR ATTACK] — [PROMPT, JUST ACTION BY GERMANY EXPECTED] — [THE WHOLE NATION BEHIND THE PRESIDENT] — [SOUTH AND WEST RESOUNDED WITH APPROVAL].