The Washington times., 1915-07-07
SUBMARINE COMPLICATIONS

/
has been sounding out Washington
to learn what submarine policy by
the German admiralty would be sat
isfactory to our Government fresh
complications have continued to
arise in startling forms.
For ages it has been the rule of
war that the armed vessel of bel
ligerent power has the right to call
upon any merchant vessel sailing
the high seas to halt and submit to
visit and search so that the nature
of its cargo and the purpose of it's
voyage may be determined. And
correspondingly it has been the
code of naval warfare that though
the merchant vessel were of an
enemy country, though it carried
contraband, though it were a block
ade runner, though it were engaged
in any business short Of the opera
tions of war vessel, those on board
should be safeguarded from destruc-
ton.
At the same time it is, and always
has been, the contention of our Gov
ernment that American citizens on
any merchant vessel, whether of an
enemy country or not, whether
carrying contraband or not, must be
held safe by any belligerent power.
This, Of course, entails the removal
Of American citizens from the ves-
sci of a belligerent-when it is cap
tured by another bellieerent-before
that vessel be destroyed.
Now, because the Won Tirpitz
admiralty a while ago was declar-
ing that it was impossible for sub
marines, because of the very nature
Of the craft and because of the hit
and-miss work in which they were
engaged, to remove and take care
of passengers and crews of mer-
chant vessels to be attacked, Pres
ident Wilson demanded virtually
that submarine warfare against the
merchant shipping of an enemy
country be abandoned.
But it has happened that since
Mr.. Wilson's note, following the
Lusitania horror, the Won Tirpitz
admiralty has shown that it is pos
sible for submarines attacking an
enemy's shipping to observe the
rules of civilized warfare to the
exact detail with which any other
war vessel would be expected to OBJ
serve those rules. This wars notably
exemplified the other day in the
case of the Armenian, where the
submarine running that vessel
down compelled the Armenian, with
incessant shelling, to cease her at
tempts to escape, and then, before
torpedoing her, gave all surviving
souls on board ample time to get
away in the ships boats.
Yet at the very time that the sub
marines manifest a willingness to
abide by the rules of war, British
merchantmen elect to refuse to sur
render when challenged by the sub
marines. Their defense for inviting,
even forcing, the submarines to at
tack them before their crews are
off is that they know they are 60
ing to be destroyed anyhow, so they
prefer to make a desperate run for
it in the chance that though severe
ly shelled and losing men in the
course of their flight they might
get away. This very result has just
been achieved by a British vessel,
the Anglo Californian, riddled with
shot, her captain and nine sailors
killed, with eight wounded, and yet
after a four-hour chase safe in port.
Here then is a maze of new cir
cumstances in sea practices which
seem to make it quite out of the
question that Mr.. Wilson should in
sist upon his claim for the abandon
ment of submarine warfare against
enemy shipping. If the submarines
can observe the rules of war and
are willing to observe them, but the
vessels which are clearly lawful
prizes will not permit the innocent
lives on board to be saved, it does
not seem that Mr.. Wilson can
reasonably press the issue along
the lines of his earlier demands.
The President is right to insist
that the weapon, however dangerous,
must be used with due regard to the
safety Of innocent neutrals, must
be used in accordance with all the
rules of civilized warfare. But fur
ther than that, since the use of sub
marines is the acknowledged right
of all powers, and since an enemy's
merchant ships, by all the rules of
war, are the lawful prizes of bellig-
erents whenever they can be taken,
we do not see how he can possibly
go.
POSTMASTERS