Der Deutsche correspondent. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1841-1918, 1915-02-16

/
ruiiii6cn 9ufowina-glrmee. Ole 9u-
liirten linO Elm unic6lbores Srafel
geporOcn. wenn iie ii6er englii1e,
fran55iiibe ooer ruiiiide n@riolge"
an einem beiimmten &lase 6eri9tclL
iolgt in "a oDcr as Stunoen ieOeS
Dial oie gladri6t Don groBen oelt-
i6en oOer oiterrei9iiden Siegen, uno
5Uar bon Uirflibenl
PRESS COMMENTS ON THE USE
OF OUR FLAG.
The appreciation of the American
Flag by British steamships as pro-
| lection against German attack has
provoked adverse editorial comment
from practically all newspapers in
the country which are not absolutely
financed by British or French capital.
Under the heading "The United
States Must Prevent the Fraudulent
Use of It's Flag" the Washington Post
says:
without splitting hairs as to
what masters Of merchant vessels
may do in an emergency it is appar-
ent that the United States cannot
remain neutral and permit Great
Britain to use the American flag for
the protection of British merchant
vessels. Great Britain has lodged a
protest against the transfer of Ger
man vessels to the American flag.
II Is held that such a transfer would
be an unneutral act-a piece Of
favoritism toward Germany and
/ of Dr ,ftsfn
toward Great Britain. So forceful is
this protest that congress is proceed
ing with extreme caution in the en-
actment OF o law providing for gov
ernment owned steamship lines.
Amendments have been proposed
providing that the government shall
be prohibited from purchasing the
vessels of belligerents Senators
Root, Lodge and Burton have empha-
sized with great ability the danger
Of complications with Great Britain
in case the United States should
transfer to the American flag the
vessels OF any belligerent. Great
Britain would assuredly seize such
vessels, on the ground of fraudulent
use of the flag. The United States
would be forced either to submit to
the seizure of tho ships or be pre-
pared TO go to war with Great
Britain. Yet Great Britain now pro-
poses to take possession of the Amer
lean Gag and float it above her own
merchant-mcn without asking the
consent of the United States. The
London Express asks pertinently.
What has become Of the British navy
that England must resort to the mis-
use of a neutral flag to protect its
merchantmen? 1t remarks that it is
not pleasant to see the British union
jack hauled down to make place for
a foreign flag"
In another issue the same paper
says: obviously it has now become
necessary to givo warning that mis-
use of the flag will not be permitted
and law should be Immediately en-
acted penalizing masters and confis-
eating vessels which are involved in
such transactions. A law of that
kind would be very effective, even
upon the high seas, for it would
debar offending masters and vessels
from entering American jurisdiction
on pain Of prosecution. Pending the
negotiation Of an international
agreement for preserving the in
yiolability Of the flag, it is the duty
of the United States to warn Great
Britain against further misuse of the
flag"
We Should Protest.
In discussing "Our Duty to Our
Flag" the Boston Transcript, on the
other hand. writes:
Can it (the United States), ought
it, by failure to make a vigorous
protest against a repetition of the
Lusitania incident, tacitly license a
use of its flag on the sea that would
provoke it's indignation if initiated
on land? Suppose, for instance, one
of the numerous Mexican armies"
that are lowering on their side OF
the boundary line should display the
American flag to further some of
their schemes or to conceal their
true character Would there be two
opinions in this country as to such
an act or OF the necessity of the most
energetic warning from our govern
ment against continued misuse OF
the symbol Of our sovereignty? Is
there to be one law regarding the
unauthorized display of our flag on
land and another law, or rather no
law at all, about its misuse at sea?
There is no law on our statute books
on the subject, but it is time that
there was. That a nation has not
the right to forbid the use OF its
flag by merchant vessels Of other
nations is unthinkable. The United
States does not lose its right to pro-
test because OF the efficiency Of its
statutes. It's right is inherent in its
sovereignty. The safety of neutrals
in the prescribed waters is en-
dangered If the display of false col
ors is licensed by the silence of our
government. The lives and property
OF Americans are also endangered
should we tacitly consent to the use
OF our flag by one OF the belligerents
to deceive the others. Suppose that
tho Lusitania, under the American
flag, had been fired on by a German
cruiser. Could we have pleaded
that our sovereignty had been af-
fronted? What may happen to a
merchant vessel Of the belligerents
which disguises its nationality by