DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

CASE OF THE PETROLITE. 197
That, as a matter of fact, the Petrolite must have turned
through more than 90° appears from the statement of
the American naval constructor that the projectile which
struck the steamer must have had an angle of impact
of 45°. The submarine boat lay stopped astern of the
steamer when the steamer was ordered to stop. It is
not feasible to explain the angle of 45° by a maneuver of
the submarine boat, for there was no reason for the latter
to proceed to a dangerous position ahead of the steamer.
The boat was obliged to endeavor to remain astern of
the steamer, in order not to expose itself to the danger of
being rammed. The commander can not concur in the
opinion that an attempt at ramming could not be assumed
for the reason that the steamer was 2 miles distant
from the submarine boat, and that subsequently an attempt
at ramming would appear as hopeless; for he holds
that a submarine boat can not in a few moments submerge
deep enough to escape an attack, so that the possibility
of ramming a submarine boat is not to be excluded
even when the boat is 2 miles or more from the
steamer.
Finally, _ it is incorrect to assert that the maneuver
executed by the Petrolite was the proper and reasonable
mode of procedure. On the contrary, every steamer
which is held up by a belligerent man-of-war is obliged,
as is generally known, to stop as quickly as possible without
executing any maneuver. A captain of a merchant
vessel must know that a maneuver such as that of the
Petrolite, particularly in the case of being stopped by a
submarine boat, subjects his vessel to suspicion, and therefore
places it in serious danger. Moreover, there were not
12, but only 5, shots fired. As to the effect of these shots,
the commander distinctly remembers that the captain
stated that the damage caused on deck was insignificant.
After the captain had come on board of the submarine
boat, the commander, in addition to calling his attention
to the false maneuver and to the Baralong case, also called
his express attention to the absence of a neutral distinguising
mark.
The wound of the Danish sailor was a very slight one;
there can obviously be no question of serious flesh wounds.
The sailor came on board of the submarine with the captain
and said, in the course of the conversation, that a
fragment of a shell had grazed his left upper thigh. He
was of good cheer and smiled when expressions of sympathy
were extended to him. He was a member of the
boat's crew and accepted cigarettes from the commander
of the submarine boat.
The testimony of the captain in connection with the delivery
of provisions does not conform with the facts. It
was only a question of whether he could let the officers'
mess have some fresh meat. The submarine boat was
amply supplied with provisions; but inasmuch as at the
time it had been 10 days at sea it is conceivable that fresh
provisions would have been welcome.
The captain declared himself immediately ready to turn
over such provisions and refused any compensation, with