Arizona republican., 1916-02-28

tion also has been directed to the Amer ican memorandum of September 19, 1914, to port authorities which define for their benefit defensive armament. In this document, which was signed by i Secretary Lansing, it is stated that the presence of an armament and am intuition on board a merchant vessel creates the presumption that the arm ament is for offensive purposes, but the owners or agents may overcomes this presumption by evidence showing that i the vessel carries armament solely for 1 defensive purposes"
 l The Berlin government is said to realize that, should it sink an armed 1 ship it will rest the burden of proof re- garding guns, but it contends that upon the government owning the ship would fall the burden of proof regarding the non- offensive character of the arma- ment.
 l Ambassador Von Bernstorff is un- 1 derStood to have been given no instruc- 1 tiOns to request from the United States a definition of what it considers under existing conditions may be considered l defensive armament. He is understood 1 however to have prepared to discuss the question with Secretary Lansing, should it be brought up during the com | ing conference. In this connection con l fidential advices from Berlin indicate that the German government might be willing to treat as peaceful merchant men ships with armament so light and so placed that it could not possibly be used effectively. For instance, it was intimated that Germany might, should the United States insist upon it, agree to grant immunity to vessels armed with single one -pounder, placed on the stern and so arranged that such gun could swing not more than 35 or 40 degrees.
 The ambassador is also understood to have been instructed to call the at tention of Secretary Lansing to the fact that French ships are not armed, that British ships entering American ports are not armed, and that conseuuentIy the Berlin government considers the chances of difficulties with the United States as result of the new policy are remote.
 The attitude of the United States probably will not be made known at once. Much depends upon the contents Of the appendices to the German mem orandum which are claimed to contain copies of alleged confidential instruc
 tons to masters of British merchant men regarding warfare on submarines
 State department officials have been awaiting the arrival of these appen-
 ices with much interest and it has been admitted that they may have an inn portant bearing on the attitude of this government toward the entire oues- ton. The principal assurance given Tn the Lusltania case read as follows:
 Liners will not be sunk without warning by our submarines and with out safety of the lives of non-c combat ants provided that the liners do not try to escape or offer resistance"
 The contention of the British gov
 ernment is reported as being that all defensively armed British merchantmen are prepared and instructed not only to resist, but to attack. Consequently. It IS argued, the new policy toward armed ships squares with international law, the German view being that if the
 British merchant ships have been in- structed to violate and do violate the
 law as interpreted by the United
 states, Germany is justified in taking. measures in retaliation.
 It IS understood that the Austro-
 Hungary embassy here has received advlces somewhat similar to those sent
 rom Berlin to Count Non Bernstorff. It could not be learned tonight whether Baron Erich Zwiedinek, charge of the
 embassy, would call upon Secretary Lansing and inform him of the position or his government. which differs slight
 " rom that of Germany because of
 the fact that virtually all Italian ships
 are armed, although those leaving American ports do so under pledge
 that they will not use their guns when
 warned by submarine Germany. not being at war with Italy, has no partic-
 ular interest in Italian ships.
 The state department holds to the