El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1916-04-20
ILLEGAL ATTACKS ARE DELIBERATE.
SAYS j. s. IN NOTE To GERMANY
If Sussex Case Were Only Instance of Gross Violation Of
Law, Punishment Of Commander and Repatriation
Might be Acceptable Says Note; Evidence in Many
Cases, However, Makes Change Essential
Continued from page -

, in recent months been quickened' and
/ extended.
The imperial government will recall
that when. in February. 1918. it an
nOunced it's intention OF treating the
waters surrounding Great Britain and
ireland as embraced within the seat
OF war and Of destroying all merchant
ships owned by its enemies that might
be found within that zone of danger,
and warned all vessels, neutral as well
as belligerent to keep out OF the wat
ers thus prescribed, or to enter them
at their peril. the government of the
( United States earnestly protested.
Position Of United States.
at took the position that such a
policy could not be pursued without
constant gross and palpable violations
Of the accepted law of nations, partic-
ularly if submarine craft were to be
employed as its instruments, inasmuch
as the rules prescribed by that law,
rules founded on the principles Of hui
manity and established for the protec-
tion Of the lives of noncombatants at
sea, could not in the nature OF the case
be observed by such vessels.
Made IntoIernbIe Risks.
1T based it's protest on the ground
that persons Of neutral nationality and
vessels of neutral ownership would be
exposed to extreme and 1ntoleraDle
risks: and that no right to close any
part Of the high seas could lawfully be
asserted by the imperial government in
the circumstances then existing. The
law Of nations in these matters. upon
which the government Of tue United
States based that protest, is not OF re.
cent origin or founded upon merely ar
bitrary principles SIT mp by convention
II is based. on the contrary, upon mani
fest PRINCIPLES OF humanity and has
long been established with the APPROX
al and by the express assent OF all civ
ilized nations.
Persisted in Policy.
1.-THE imperial government notwith-
standing. persisted in carrying out the
policy announced, expressing the hope
that the dangers involved. at any rate
to nuetral vessels. would be reduced to
a minimum by the instructions which
IL had issued to the commanders of its
submarines. and assuring the govern
meut of the United States that it would
take every possible precautiOn both to
respect the rights Of neutrals and to
safeguard the lives OF nOncombatants
Commanders Ruthless.
in pursuance Of this policy Of sub
marine warfare against the commerce
of its adversaries thus announced ana
thus entered upon in spite Of the
solemn protest Of the government OF
the United States, the commanders Of
the imperial governments underseG
vessels have carried on practices Of
such ruthless destruction. which have
made IL more and more evident as the
government has found IL impractiCable
to put any such restraint upon them
as it had hoped and promised 20 put.
PART TWO.
Commanders Disregard Assurances.
Again and again the imperial gov
eminent has given its solemn assur-
ances to the government OF the United
States that &c least passengers would
not be thus dealt with, and yet it has
repeatedly permitted its undersea com
manders to disregard these assurances ,
with entire impunity. As recently as |
February last, it gave notice that il /
would regard all armed merchantmen !
owned by its enemies as part of the !
naval forces Of its adversaries and deal |
with them as with men Of war. thus. !
at least by implication. pledging itself |
to give warning to vessels which were /
not armed and accord security Of life /
TO their passengers and crews; but even /
this limitation their submarines COM
have reclzlessly ignored.
Sometimes Warning Given.
Vessels Of neutral ownership. even 1
vessels Of neutral ownership bound !
from neutral ports. have been destroyed 4
along with vessels OF belligerent own