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

Law of Nation. What Respects 1t Held to Transcend and
Extend Law.

tions Of her capture and the situation and
circumstance Of the capturing vessel
President Wilson in his first note 70 Ger.
many after the Lusitania disaster demanded
by clear inference that Germany should CEASE
her submarine warfare. The second Ameri
can note was more nearly in line with n.
principles above outlined.
The newspapers which are contendng that
the administration at Washington should 70.
assume the attitude Of debating to any Of the
nations at war the manner in which they
shall conduct their operations against each
other are simply inviting future embarras,
ment, both 70 their editors and 70 our goy.
eminent, in case the advice Is followed
II has always been conceded and jealousy
maintained by all nations including our own.
that the deck Of vessel is the territory o.
the nation the flag Of which the vessel aies.
How, then, can American citizens claim IN
due privileges or immunities on board a yes.
sci of belligerent, even though that vessel
happens TO be passenger vessel?
One point in conclusion: II has been con.
tended and argued that merchant vessels
cannot be destroyed, under the rules Of in
ternatiOnal law, until passengers and crew
have been placed in a position Of safety, or,
at least, permitted to escape While there
has been no substantial protest to this claim
in the American press, | know Of no prece-
dent to warrant such claim. This is the first
war in history in which the question Of pas
sengers has seriously arisen.
Our Revolutionary War and the War Of
1912 with Great Britain are the latest and
most important events where naval warfare
cut sufficiently large a figure TO form the
basis of an international rule. At that time
passenger traffic was negligible. Prior 70
that time the regular passage Of citizens Of
one country into another by means OF pas.
senger vessels was so limited that their
rights, though neutras, in time OF war did
not become an issue.
know of no specific case where the cues.
ton has been raised or decided. ! should be
greatly obliged if you will cite single con.
trolling precedent for the claim that passen.
gers of a neutral nation on board Of BEL
ligerent vessel, who boarded the vessel know
ing that the nation TO which il belonged was
at war with another, are entitled 70 airy priv
ileges materially greater than those Of non.
combatant citizens Of the belligerent nation
on board the same ship.
If there is no such precedent then there
is no such rule, and the discussion is purely
academic and based upon what the parties
10 the controversy severally may think ought
to be the rule. Under these circumstances
the position Of one nation on this subject Is
legally just as strong and just as weak as
the position of another nation The rule is
simply in the making and we are contending
for what we believe it ought to be-
The right of visit and search applies TO
neutral vessels, not belligerents. It Is
we'll established rule and is intended 70 per
NIT a belligerent vessel 70 ascertain
whether or not a neutral is carrying contra
band TO an enemy. II should not be confused
with the rules applying to the vessels Of an
enemy, whether war or merchant vessels, or
whether carrying freight or passengers. or
both. ANDREW COLYlN.
New York, July 81, 1915.