15, 1915, by one of the most distinguished commentators on the
war. Dr. Eliot counsels that America's part is to resist such
a no-faith policy while keeping its neutral status.

Cambridge, Mass., May 13, 1915.

_To the Editor of The New York Times:_

The sinking of a great merchant vessel, carrying 2,500 noncombatant men,
women, and children, without giving them any chance to save their lives,
was in violation of long-standing conventions among civilized nations,
concerning the conduct of naval warfare. The pre-existing conventions
gave to a German vessel of war the right to destroy the Lusitania and
her cargo, if it were impossible to carry her into port as a prize; but
not to drown her passengers and crew. The pre-existing conventions or
agreements were, however, entered into by the civilized nations when
captures at sea were made by war vessels competent to take a prize into
some port, or to take off the passengers and crew of the captured
vessel.

The German Government now alleges that submarines are today the only
vessels it can employ effectively for attack on British commerce in the
declared war zone about the British Isles, since the rest of the German
Navy cannot keep the seas in face of the superior British Navy. Germany
further alleges that the present British blockade of German ports is
conducted in a new way--that is, by vessels which patrol the German
coast at a greater distance from the actual harbors than was formerly
the international practice; and hence, that Germany is justified in
conducting her attack on British commerce in a novel way also. In short,
Germany argues that her military necessities compel her to sink enemy
commercial vessels without regard to the lives of passengers and crews,
in spite of the fact that she was party to international agreements that
no such act should be committed.

The lesson which the sinking of the Lusitania teaches is, therefore,
this: Germany thinks it right to disregard on grounds of military
necessity existing international conventions with regard to naval
warfare, precisely as she disregarded the agreed-upon neutrality of
Belgium on the ground of military necessity. As in the case of Belgium
she had decided many years beforehand to violate the international
neutrality agreement, and had made all her plans for reaching Paris in a
few weeks by passing through Belgium, so on the sea she had decided
months ago that the necessity of interfering as m