ough which
Austria-Hungary could find an acceptable excuse. It preferred to believe
that the submarine commander acted contrary to instructions rather than
accept the alternative assumption that the Austro-Hungarian Government
"failed to issue instructions to the commanders of the submarines in
accordance with the laws of nations and the principles of humanity."

The answer of Austria-Hungary (December 13, 1915) was deftly befogging
by clouding in diplomatic rhodomontade the familiar issues raised by
the United States. Its deliberate evasiveness was so direct as to be
almost an affront. Stripped of its confusing terminology, the Austrian
note declared that the United States had not adequately stated its
cause of complaint, and had wrongly assumed that the Austrian
Government was fully acquainted with all communications passed between
the German and American Governments on the submarine issue. This plea
of ignorance was made in face of the precautionary transmission by the
State Department to the Austrian embassy of copies of all the
American notes sent to Germany. The Austrian note also questioned
whether the testimony made by the _Ancona_ survivors, whom the
American protest had not specifically named, was to be deemed more
trustworthy than the report of the submarine commander. As to
Austria-Hungary's knowledge of the American issues with Germany, that
Government was not of the opinion that "this knowledge could be
sufficient for the present case, which, according to its own
information, is materially different from the case or cause to which
the American Government apparently is referring." The note thus
proceeded:

"Therefore, the Austro-Hungarian Government must leave it to the
Washington Cabinet to draw up the individual legal maxims which the
commander of the submarine is alleged to have violated when sinking
the _Ancona_.

"The American Government also thought it advisable to point out the
attitude which the Berlin Cabinet in the before-mentioned exchange of
correspondence had taken. In the highly esteemed note the
Austro-Hungarian Government finds no support for this course. If the
American Government should have intended thereby to express an opinion
as if a precedent exists for the present case, the Austro-Hungarian
Government, in order to prevent misunderstandings, must declare that
it, of course, must preserve full liberty to urge its own legal
interpretations during the discussion of the _Ancona_ case.