DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

CASE OF THE PETROLITE. 191
to the fact that at the warning shot from the U-boat the
captain did not stop, and moreover by false maneuvering
provoked the suspicion of hostile intentions.
As far as the demand for provisions is concerned, a
requisition contrary to international law does not come
into question, because, as is apparent from the statement
of the case, the delivery of provisions was simply requested,
at which time it was expressly stated that it
was beyond the intention of the commandant to exercise
any compulsion. Moreover, it appears certain that the
captain delivered the provisions most readily.
It can also not be said that the sailor was detained on
board the U-boat either against his own or the captain's
will, all the less so since the willingness of the captain to
supply the U-boat with provisions gave no occasion for
such action.
In view, of the usages and principles prevailing at sea,
the commandant of the U-boat appears to be entirely
justified in having refused to- answer the inquiry of the
captain relative to the number of the boat and the name
of the commander.
Finally, as far as the details supplied in the last passage
of the report of the Imperial and Royal naval authorities
are concerned, it is plainly shown that the captain
felt himself in no way wronged or otherwise inconvenienced
by the action of the U-boat.
The undersigned now has the honor most respectfully
to refer the foregoing to His Excellency the Ambassador
of the United States of America for communication to the
Federal Government, and avails himself of this opportunity
to renew to the Ambassador the expression of his
highest consideration.
BmtiAN.
File No. 300.115P44/17.
The Secretary of State to Ambassador Penfield.
[Telegram.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, June 21, 1916.
Evidence obtained from the captain and members of
crew of the steamer Petrolite, and from examination
made of the vessel under direction of the Navy Department,
convinces this Government that the Austro-Hungarian
Government has obtained an incorrect report of
the attack on the steamer. With particular reference to
the explanation made by the Foreign Office, the following
information, briefly stated, has been obtained from
sworn statements of the captain and members of crew:
No shot was fired across the bow of the steamer as
a signal to stop. When the first shot was fired the captain
was under the impression that an explosion had taken
place in the engine room. Not until the second shot was
fired did the captain and crew sight the submarine, which
was astern of the steamer and therefore they positively
assert that neither the first nor the second shot was fired
across the bow of the vessel.
The steamer did not swing around in a course directed
toward the submarine as alleged in the report obtained by
the Austro-Hungarian Government, but the captain at
once stopped the engines and swung the vessel broadside
to the submarine and at right angles to the course of the