New-York tribune., 1915-03-18


any reply from the German government
10 this proposal. and we remain in con
tinuing anxiety and apprehension as TO
the treatment Of British prisoners oil
war in Germany.
Charges Against Germany.
3-At the very outset OF the war
German mine layer was discovered lay
ing mIne field on the high seas;
Further mine fields have been laid
from time to time. without warning
and, so far as we know. arc stu being
laid on the high seas. and many neutra!
as well as British vessels have beeh
sunk by them.
AT various times during the war
German submarines have stopped and
sunk British merchant vessels, thus
making the sinking of merchant vessels
general practice, though it was ad-
mitted previously, If at all, only as an
exception. the general rule TO when
the British government have adhered
being that merchant vessels, If capt
tured, must be taken before prize
court. In one case already quoted In
note to the United States government
a neutral vessel carrying foodstuiis to
an unfortified town in Great Britain
has been sunk Another case is now
reported in which German armed
cruiser has sunk an American vessel,
the William p. Frye, carrying a cargo
of wheat from Seattle to Queenstown.
In both cases the cargoes were pre-
sumably destined for the civil popula-
ton Even the cargoes in such circum-
stances should not have been CON
demned without the decision of prize
court. much less should the vessels
have been sunk. 1t is to be noted that
both these cases occurred before the
detention by the British authorities OF
the Wilhelmina and her cargo OF 1000
stuffs, which the German government
allege is the justification for their own
action.
The Germans have announced their
intention of sinking British merchant
vessels by torpedo without notice and
without any provision f.r the sa1ety OF
the crew. They have already carried
out this intention in the case of neu-
trail. as we'll as of British, vessels, and
a number of non-combatant and inno--
cent lives on British vessels. unarmed
and defenceless, have been destroyed IN
this way.
6.-Unfortified, open and defenceless
towns. such as Scarborough, Yarmouth
and Whitby, have been deliberately and
wantonly bombarded by German SHIPS
of war, causing in some cases consider
able loss of civilian life, including wom-
en- and children. 3,
6.-German aircraft have dropped
bombs on the east coast OF EngIahu
where there were no military oi
strategic points to be attacked. On
the other hand. am aware o. but two
criticisms that have been made on
British action in all these respects:
DIT is said that the British ma
val authorities also have laid some
anchored mines on the high seas. Ihey
have done so, but the mines were
anchored and so constructed that they
would be harmless if they went adrltt,
and no mines whatever were lald by
the British naval authorities till many
weeks after the Germans had made
regular practice of laying mines on
the high seas.
(2)-It is said that the British gov
ernment have departed from the view
of international law which they had
previously maintained that foodstuns
destined for the civil population should
never be interfered with, this charge
being founded on the submission to
prize court of the cargo of the Will
affecting this cargo have already been
presented in a memorandum TO the
United States government, and | need
not repeat them here.
No Universal Blockade Rule.
Inasmuch as the stoppage of all
foodstuffs is an admitted consequence
of blockade, it is obvious that there
can be no universal rule based on
considerations of morality and human
. ity which is contrary to this practice:
The right to stop foodstutfs destined
for the civil population must, there
fore, in any case be admitted II an
effective Gordon" controlling inter
course with the enemy is drawn, an
nounced and maintained. Moreover
independently of rights arising from
belligerent action in the nature OF
blockade, some other nations, differing
from the opinion of the governments
of the United States and Great Brit
ain. have held that to stop the food
I Of the civil population is natural
and legitimate method Of bringing
pressure to bear on an enemy country
as it is upon the defence of be-
sieged town. 1t is also upheld on the
! authority Of both Prince Bismarck and
! Count Caprivi, and, therefore, pre-
/ sumably is not repugnant to German
morality.
The following are the quotations
| from Prince Bismarck and Count Ca
privi on this point: Prince Bismarck,
| in answering in 1885 an application
| from the Kiel Chamber OF Commerce
! for statement OF the view of the
/ German government on the question
Of the right to declare as contraband
/ foodstuffs that were not intended for
military forces, said:
81 reply to the Chamber of Com
merce that any disadvantage our COM
mercial and carrying interests may
/ suffer by the treatment of rice as con-
traband OF war does not justify our
| opposing q measure which it has been
| thought fit to take in carrying on a
| foreign war. Every war is a calamity
which entails evil consequences not
only on the combatants, but also on
reutrals. These evils may easily be
increased by the interference of a
neutral power with the way in which
q third carries on the war TO the dis
advantage Of the subjects Of the inter
fering power, and by this means Ger
man commerce might be weighted with
far heavier losses than a transitory
prohibition Of the rice trade in Chi
nese waters. The measure in question
has for its object the shortening OF
the war by increasing the difficulties
Of the enemy and is justifable step
in war if impartially enforced against
all neutral ships"
Count Caprivi. during a discussion
in the German Reichstag, on March 4
1882. on the subject Of the importance
Of international protection for private
property at sea, made the following
statements:
"a country may be dependent foI
her food or Cor her raw products upon
| L. L. % hn nhen