Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1915-05-13

The rule of maritime warfare which
imposes upon the commander of a ship
OF war the duty of providing for the
safety of the passengers and crew Of
any vessel he may elect to destroy is
plain, unmistakable in its application
to every case, and 1t has been every
where and by all civilized nations ac-
cepted as a binding obligation. The
rule is OF such universal. acceptance
and assent that the text writer's Tor
the most part mention it only in pass
ing illusions, as when Holland says
that If ship and cargo belong beyond
question TO the enemy" the captor
may "after taking off the crew sink
the ship" In the rules relating to the
destroying of prizes adopted by the
Institute of International Law at Tu-
rim I'm 1882, il was declared that in
any case the captor must remove the
persons on board" The German gov.
eminent in an official document at the
beginning of the war rallied at France
and England for lallying themselves
with Russia, nation of "unkultnr
and barbarism. yet in the Russian
special instructions to naval comman-
ders issued in 1900 il was declared
that "the commander of the imperial
vessel has the right TO burn or sink
a detained vessel after having previ-
ously taken therefrom the crew" In
all discussions of maritime warfare
the obligation to save crew and pas
sengers is assumed, precisely as in
any comment upon criminal law 1t
would be assumed that in all coun-
Irr fc
crime.
The man in the street may have
some possible excuse for ignorance of
this humane usage of war, but it is
something more than surprising TO
hear from the lips of Senator Will
liam ]. stone of Missouri, chairman
of the Senate committee on foreign
relations. these insinuated excuses or
palliations of the dastardly crime
committed by Germany in destroying
the Lusitania without warning and
with such brutal Indifference to the
fate of her company that there are
more than 400 names in the list OF
the dead:
ave cannot overlook the fact that
the Lusitania was a British ship n.y.
ing the British flag and subject al
any time to be put into actual naval
service of the government. Indeed
Il is stated that at the time she was
attacked she was carrying military
reservists to England for service IN
the British army. True, the passen'
gers went aboard a belligerent shiI
with full knowledge of the risk ant
after official warning by the German
government. When on board a Brit
ish vessel they we're on British sol
Was NOT their position substantial,
equivalent to being within the walls
of a fortified city? II American citi
zens stay within a city besieged oil
threatened and the enemy attacks
what should our government do i
our citizens should be iniured?"
We overlook nothing. we take full
account of all facts-that the Lusi
tania was an enemy ship flying the
enemy flag, that she was carrying mu
nitions of war TO the enemy, and hat
on board reservists sailing for ser
vice in the British army. These un
disputed facts gave the commando
/ of the German submarine the RICH
TO destroy the ship. Nothing coul'
give him the right 20 destroy or to i'm
peril her crew and passengers. Sen
ator stone stumbles into compari
son with the status of neutrals withn
the walls of a fortified city undo
siege. But international law require
the besieging force TO give notice o
bombardment 1.-THE officer in com
mand of an attacking force so run
the language of The Hague conven
ton. must. before commencing
bomhardment. in cases Of assault, d
all in his power 10 warn the authori
ties" Neither in law nor in custom
is there any extenuation for this &C
of monstrous inhumanity. no excep
ton. no condition, can be made I
shield IL from the full force and con
demnation il deserves and has receiv