Probably two submarines.]

It must be assumed that the German submarine commanders realized the
obvious disadvantages which necessarily attached to the _Lusitania_,
and, if she had evaded one submarine, who can say what might have
happened five minutes later? If there was, in fact, a third torpedo
fired at the _Lusitania's_ port side, then that incident would strongly
suggest that, in the immediate vicinity of the ship, there were at least
two submarines.

It must be remembered also that the _Lusitania_ was still in the open
sea, considerably distant from the places of theretofore submarine
activity and comfortably well off the Old Head of Kinsale, from which
point it was about 140 miles to the Scilly Islands, and that she was
nearly 100 miles from the entrance to St. George's Channel, the first
channel she would enter on her way to Liverpool.

[Sidenote: Attack intended to destroy life.]

No transatlantic passenger liner, and certainly none carrying American
citizens, had been torpedoed up to that time. The submarines, therefore,
could lay their plans with facility to destroy the vessel somewhere on
the way from Fastnet to Liverpool, knowing full well the easy prey which
would be afforded by an unarmed, unconvoyed, well-known merchantman,
which from every standpoint of international law had the right to expect
a warning before its peaceful passengers were sent to their death. That
the attack was deliberate and long contemplated and intended ruthlessly
to destroy human life, as well as property, can no longer be open to
doubt. And when a foe employs such tactics it is idle and purely
speculative to say that the action of the Captain of a merchant ship, in
doing or not doing something or in taking one course and not another,
was a contributing cause of disaster or that had the Captain not done
what he did or had he done something else, then that the ship and her
passengers would have evaded their assassins.

[Sidenote: The Captain and company not negligent.]

I find, therefore, as a fact, that the Captain and, hence, the Cunard
Company were not negligent.

The importance of the cause, however, justifies the statement of another
ground which effectually disposes of any question of liability.

It is an elementary principle of law that even if a person is negligent
recovery cannot be had unless the negligence is the proximate cause of
the loss or damage.

There is another rule, settled by ample authority, viz.: t