The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1906-04-21
an ITlGerrla6Io1M
Conference

There is another standpoint from
which this question Of the legitimate
use OF floating or submarine mines
may be considered. and that is from
the standpoint Of the rights Of non
combatant enemies. Undoubtedly the
belliserent has right to resort to
such means for the purpose OF destroy
ing his enemy's fighting vessels. but
has he the right 70 subject the crews
and passengers of the merchant YES
sells of his enemy to such dangers?
To answer this question in the afhrma-
tive is TO disregard the principle that
war is a contest between states and
TO revert to the theory and practice
| of barbarism- To one who is con-
vinced that the change to the concep-
ton Of war as a contest between the
armed forces of the contendinS states.
rather than between ell the individ-
uals, marks distinct stage OF pro
gress in the laws and usases Of war.
a reverSion TO the old conception
would be anything but gratifying.
The right of belliserents to destroy
neutral, vessels, instead Of taking
them in for adjudication. has again
been raised by the action of Russia
IN sinking the knight Commander.
The Thea, and The HipsanS- That
extreme circumstances may excuse
the exercise of so harsh a means OF
protecting the rights OF belligerents
has for some time been claimed, con-
ditional, however, upon compensation
10 the neutral for his loss. Such was
the decision of Lord Stowell in the
case of The Action e Dodson, 4S).
and The Felicity (Ibid ESD. But as
there is divergence of opinion and
practice as to the facts which furnish
the basis for the exercise OF the right.
and as it is commended by some that
compensation is not necessary, it IS
evident that there is need of a def
mite agreement. Nor is the need of
such agreement confined to the ques-
should include also provision for the
ascertainment of this by an impartial
tribunal Though it would of course
be exceedingly difficult. il not impos-
sib1e. to fix in advance the circurn-
stances iustifyins the right of destrhc-
ton. a agreement as to an equitable
rndthod of redress through an i'm
partial tribunal should offer no insur-
!nountab1e obstacles. At least this
1,-I,
cd.
The use of wireless teleSraphy by
neutra1s in or near the zone OF hostile
operations presents a new and difficult
problem. one concerning which there
is need of an agreement for the pur-
pose of avoiding friction and preserv-
ing. in so far as possible, the rights
of both neutrals and belligerents.
Though the preteusions OF Russia
were entirely untenable that she had
the right to treat as spies the news
paper correspondents seized on the
Eaimun. who were using this means OF
conveying intelligence. yet these pre-
tensions serve to show the danger and
inconvenience Of having no legal pro
vision governing the case
Scarcely less urgent. though not so
new, is the need OF determining the
right Of belligerents over submarine
cables owned by neutrals. This ques-
ton was raised during the Spanish
American war, when Admiral Dewey
cut the cable OF the Eastern Exten-
sion Company within the territorial
waters Of the hilippines. This com
pany, which was neutral, owned the
cable between Hong Kong and Manila
It demanded Of the American govern
ment compensation for its loss, and
included in this the loss of income
during the time the cable was cut
The Attorney General Of the United
States replied that neutral property
in enemy territory is, from its loca-
ton alone, liable to damage from law
full operations Of war, which this cut
ting is conceded to have been, and /
no compensation is due for such Jam |