[Illustration: BELGIAN REFUGEES FIND SAFETY IN HOLLAND. This photograph, made at Putte, a Holland frontier town, shows some of the three hundred thousand refugees who sought safety in Holland. (_Copyright by Underwood and Underwood._)] United States’ Note of Protest and Germany’s Reply Compared _President Wilson Demanded_: Practical cessation of submarine attacks on non-combatant vessels. Observance of the rule of visit and search in the case of all suspected merchantmen before any such ship shall be subjected to capture or destruction. Protection of non-combatants who may be on suspected merchantmen. Disavowal of official German responsibility for injury to Americans in the Cushing, Gulflight and Lusitania cases. Reparation, so far as reparation is possible, for irreparable damage. Immediate steps by Germany to prevent the recurrence of incidents “so obviously subversive of the principles of warfare.” The first three items, as noted above, were stated not as actual demands, but as assumptions of what Germany would agree to in view of previous communications from this country in the matter of what is allowable in maritime warfare according to previously acknowledged international law and the dictates of humanity. _Germany Conceded_: No intention of attacking neutral ships not guilty of hostile acts in “war zone.” Regrets and indemnity where neutral ship, not itself at fault, is damaged. Attacks on the American ships Gulflight and Cushing unintentional, the circumstances being rigidly investigated. Keen regret at loss of lives of neutral citizens on Lusitania. _Germany Evaded_: Issue as to humanitarian aspect and facts in Lusitania case. Giving of any direct promise to abandon submarine warfare. Any attempt to justify such warfare, except as “self-defense.” _Germany Countered_: By raising question as to Lusitania being an “auxiliary armed cruiser,” and not of the “undefended merchantmen” class. By accusing Cunard company of using American citizens to protect the “ammunition” carried by Lusitania, and of being guilty of their death. The Chicago Herald more specifically pointed out the evasiveness of the German reply, claiming that it “fails wholly to meet the main points at issue, both the specific point of the slaughter of American citizens on the Lusitania and the general point of the impossibility of employing submarines in the destruction of commerce without disregarding rules of fairness, reason, justice and humanity--established principles of international law.” EVASIVE AND INSINCERE