Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1915-05-22

The real issue raised by President
Wilson's note to Germany Is one OF
law, triable not in the high court of
civilization" which is slowly but surely
assessing the responsibility Of belliger-
ents and neutrals alike for their con-
duct in this world crisis, but In the
forum of International law.
The question is this Has the inven-
ton of the submarine so altered the
conditions of maritime warfare as to
exempt belligerents using that arm
from the obligation to secure the safe
ty Of those on board merchant vessel
of the enemy before sending her to the
bottom? That the submarine has
made some difference is conceded. The
old rule that an enemy merchant ship
shall be taken as a prize to a port of
the captor under prize crew or other
wise to be there tried by prize court
had already been modified by permit.
ting her destruction under exceptional
circumstances. Among these circum.
stances were inability to furnish a
prize crew, serious danger to the mil
itary operations of the captor and>the
like
Obviously a German submarine tax
ing a prize could not safely undertake
to convey her to a German port. She
may, therefore, lawfully destroy her.
But this right to destroy has always
been limited to the ship and cargo.
The crew and passengers as non COM
of life and limb; they may not even be
made prisoners of war. On this point
there has heretofore been no difference
of opinion. The rule that before
prize is burnt or sunk the captor is
bound to provide for the safety of all
persons on board" is laid down by all
authorities On international law and
has long been accepted in the prac-
tice of all civilized nations. Nor does
1t make any difference that the prize
was carrying contraband of war.
Whatever the nature of the cargo, the
ship. being an enemy vessel, was
liable to capture or destruction, and
the persons aboard, whether enemy
subjects or neutrals, were entitled to
be protected from injury by the captor
Has this right of the officers, the
crew and the passengers of a merchant
vessel to immunity from destruction
been abrogated by the conditions of
submarine warfare? Such a claim can
not be conceded. The argument in it's
favor is the same plea of military ne
cessity which was invoked to justify
the violation of Belgian neutrality.
But the rules of international law gov
erring warfare - whether on land or
On sea - have been adopted for the
very purpose of checking the excuses
which this plea seeks to justify The
considerations of humanity which led
to the rule requiring belligerent to
secure the safety of those on board
prize = like those fcrbidding the bonn
bardment of unfortifed towns. etc. -
are as valid against new method or
instrument of attack as against those
in use when the rule was adopted.
Rules Of law do, indeed, change with
conditions but the principles
those rules are immutable.
A new method of accomplishing an H.
legal purpose is as unlawful as an old
one. If the new weapon cannot be
used to accomplish a lawful purpose,
it cannot be used at all In no event
can it lawfully be used to effect an OBJ
ject forbidden by the laws of war
But, Germany replies, you have not
stated the question fairly. We don't
deny your right to sail the seas in
safety. What we contend is that you
are not entitled by sailing in an enemy
ship to deprive us of our admitted
right to destroy her. BY so doing you
Copyright, 1915. by Ma