New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-07-25

full. would have destroyed Germany by plac-
ing her at disadvantage against her enc
mics.
Until the history Of the present war is
written no one will know how necessary TO
Germanys survival is the obstruction, and, II
possible, destruction OF British commerce
II is therefore unsafe and unsound for any
individual or newspaper to assume 70 say
that the sinking of the Lustania was I'M
proper; the same may be said OF the acts Oh
England which are contrary to the hereto
fore accepted rules of international law. Inc
well established principle which permits
nation at war TO do an act contrary to inter
national law when her necessities require IL
to be done logically follows the maxim that
self-preservation is the first law Of nature.
We may protest to our hearts content with
reference to these practices; but II the ma
ton engaged in them is being pressed sum
GENTLY hard the practices will be continued
regardless of previously accepted rules OF in
ternational law. That this has been the
practice in war for all time will be conceded
by students Of the history Of wars
Humanitarian rules should be observed as
far as possible, and we are entirely right in
urging with all of our persuasive force their
observance as far as possible; but necessity,
which knows no law, supersedes such rules
in time Of war.
All of the above refers TO the conduct Of
the nations at war in reference to the method
Of conducting their warfare among them
selves. We may protest against what we con-
slider brutal, inhuman and illegal methods
and acts Of belligerents in the conduct OF
their war, but that is as far we may go.
The method Of conducting their warfare
among themselves, improper though II may
be, can form no basis for breaking off diplo-
matte relations or declaring war on our part
against any of the nations at war When we
have put ourselves on record TO what we
believe should be proper method under the
rules Of international law and with due re-
gard TO the rights of humanity, we have
done all that is required or that can be eI-
pected Of US.
When we consider our rights as neutrsls,
however, an entirely different situation is
presented. We have right to demand that
vessels under our register and flag, not bear
ing contraband, shall not be interfered with,
even though bound to the port Of belliger-
ent nation unless that port is actually under
blockade, and any interference with our YES
sells under those circumstances is such vio-
lation of our rights as neutrals as to justify
the breaking off Of diplomatic relations, or
even a declaration of war, unless the damage
and offence is satisfactorily explained and
adjusted
Neither the Lusitana nor the 0rduna cases
present such a question These were both
British vessels. The case of the Gulflight
and one other do come under this head, and
there are several cases which are on the
border line the case of the William p. Frye
being one of them In the latter case a neu-
trail vessel was destroyed, but her cargo was
contraband under the declaration already
made by Great Britain. The right of Ger
many to destroy this cargo is unquestionable
The right TO destroy the American vessel
carrying the cargo depends upon the condi-