New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-03-12
Mr.. Lansing and the Presidents
Triumph"

holding that Secretary Lansing, IN MS
letter Of January 10 last 10 the Allied Pow
ers. Endorsed the latest German view OF
the character of armed merchantmen
The misunderstanding Of Mr.. Lansing's
position ia all on "The Globes side.
II maintains that Mr.. Lansing's sugges-
ton TO Great Britain and France that they
tfsarm their merchantmen, so as to dispose
Of the contention that submarines are
obliged in self-protection to attack with
out notice or warning, did not commit him
to the theory that the rules Of interna-
tional law can be changed during war
except by general agreement among belllg-
erents and neutrals. True enough. When
Mr.. Lansing presented this proposition to
tho Allied Powers he was merely acting as
an intermediary seeking TO bring about
new ptod,ls viuendi supposed TO be of bene-
fit to all concerned. The Tribune did not
base its criticism Of him on that part OF
his letter Of January is.
The Secretary of State said in the body
Of his communication: ut would there
fore appear to be a reasonable and re-
ciprocally Just arrangement If 1t could be
agreed by the opposing belligerents that
submarines should be caused TO adhere
strictly 10 the rules Of international law
in the matter of stopping and searching
merchant vessels, determining their bellig-
erent nationality and removing the crews
and passengers TO places Of safety before
sinking the vessels as prizes Of war, and
that merchant vessels of belligerent ma
tionality should be prohibited from carry
ing any armament whatsoever
In presenting this argument Mr.. Lam
sing did not commit our government to the
change in international law which he pro
posed. except on the basis of an acceptance
Of the change by other neutral govern
ments and by all the belligerents. We
aeree so far with "The Globe" that 1.-The
fact that he addressed Great Britain and
France and asked them TO consent TO a
change in the existing rule implied that
he recognized what was the existing rule
and that il could not be changed without
general consent"
But what about the postscript to Mr..
Lansing's letter? In that he was not talk
inp about an alteration in international
law TO be made by all the nations con-
cerned, but of an alteration to be made by
the United States, acting singly and on
It's own responsibility.
Here is what he wrote: 81 should add
that my government is impressed with the
reasonableness of the argument that a
merchant vessel carrying an armament OF
any sort, in view Of the character Of
submarine warfare and the defensive
weakness Of undersea craft, should be
held TO be an auxiliary cruiser and so
treated by neutral as well as by bellig-
erent government, and is seriously con-
sidering instructing its officials accord
ingly."
This was a prediction of change OF
policy on the part of the United States
wholly in line with the arguments made
by the German Government. Berlin was
irving to show that the rules of interna-
tional law ought TO be modified TO meet
new conditions in sea warfare. The Ger
man Government wanted 70 be able 10
Justify the sinking Of merchant ships
armed for defence on the ground that
though being ostensibly armed for defence
they were also armed, so far as submarines
were concerned, for a highly damaging
offence. and were therefore subject 70
being treated not as merchantmen, but as
auxiliary cruisers.
Mr.. Lansing said that the United States
Government was seriously considering
accepting the German contention and ap-
plying II for Germany's benefit II he
and President Wilson had given orders tc
the collectors at American ports 20 treat
armed merchantmen as auxiliary warships
the American contention that neutrals
have right 70 travel on armed merchant
men would have been wholly abandoned.
In his letter Of February "a to Senator
Stone the President denied that he had
any such intention of altering interna-
tional law as Secretary Lansing had az
tributed 20 our government He com
planned that his efforts 10 maintain neu.
,ral rights were being hampered by TAN
in Congress about warning Americans not
20 travel on armed merchantmen.
But Congress had no power, by passing
concurrent resolutions of warning, Il
change the status Of armed merchantmen
or even 10 prevent Americans from exer
cising the right TO take passage on them
The only real waiver OF that right ever
proposed In Washington was the waiver
which Mr.. Lansing said the State Depart
ment was seriously considering"
Congress took no step TO alter interna
tional law and lacked, moreover, the power
20 alter IL by passing the Gore and Nc
Lcmore resolutions. The Administration
had the power 10 give effect 70 Germany
isuapd for % 1hapO .YJ Aid cv,reae ffgoi