The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-03-04

Merchant ships.
Tho air Of controversy Is not
cleared by the British AdmIralty's
publication Of the obstruction, dated
10th Of October. 1918. in re the status
Of armed merchant ships" In reply
TO the statement Of the German Gov
eminent that secret orders and sup
Elementary instructions had been Is.
sued to armed British merchantmen
to use their defensive armament ''of.
fensively" against German and Aus
trian submarines. The difference In
The point of view will turn upon the
Interpretation Of the word extensively.
Each side contends that the new war.
fare confronts. in the one case the
submarine and In the other the mer-
chant ship, with a danger Of instant
destruction under circumstances not
known In previous wars: and that,
in consequence, self-preservation re.
luires that the submarine shall tor
pedo without warning a merchant.
man carrying n gun, and that the
armed m~erchBntmnn shal, take no
chances of being sunk by the sub.
marine.
At this point II Is wei, to under.
stand that there Is warrant In the
books upon International law for the
British declaration Tin the Admiral.
'y's instructions) that the crew Of a
tbelligerent. not n neutrall merchant
ship has n right ITO forcibly resist
visit and search and fight In sclf-de.
fence" This principle the Germans
do not dispute In their prize rcgu.
lations. OPPENHErM says:
"1n a sense the crews OF merchant
men owned by subjects o. the belliger-
ents belong to the iatter's armed forces
For those vessel. are liable to be seized
b. enemy men-ot-var, and II attacked
FOR that purpose they can defend them
selves, can return the attack. and even
tual!y seize the attacking men-of-war.
The crews OF merchantmen become In
such cases combatants, and enjoy all
the privileges of the members OF armed
forces"
OppyyHElM adds that unless at.
tackled they must not commit hostili.
ties. This Inhibition the British Ad.
miralty amends because the German
submarines have often attacked mer.
chant ships without warning. In fact
without being seen, a procedure which
the Germans. who want to run no
risk themselves In their stealthy war
fare from the ambush of the deep.
Justify by saying that a single shot
from u trading ships light gun might
send a submarine visible on the sur.
face to the bottom. Ii the "Instruc-
zion Of the British Admiralty is OK.
amined II will be seen that, IA Brit.
ish submarines are under orders not
IL appronch merchant vessels, the
captain of n British merchant shin
* to assume that any submarine
which deliberately approaches or pur-
sues it "does 50 with hostile, intent
The obstruction" proceeds
in such cases fire may be opened in
self-defence In order 10 prevent the hos
tile craft from closing to a range at
which resistance to a sudden attack with
bomb or torpedo would be Impossible"
Thus in the British Interpretation
the merchant ship can discharge n
missile first and still be acting on
the defensive. This Is a view that
the Germans reject: they must get
in the first blow, for the safety of the
submarine. and only then can the
merchant ship, in the spirit OF Ger.
many's prize regulations, defend her.
self. But, n q matter of fact, she
has ~"scrapped' the defensive prin-
ciple altogether: any merchantmen
that carries a gun Is n warshlp and
rnn be sunk without warning. Thus
there Is an irreconcilable difference;
II !awning, an impossible gulf.
The situation for ali practical pur.
poses is not relieved In the lenst by
the statement Of the British "Instruc.
ton" that armament Is supplied
solely for the purpose Of resisting at
tack by an armed enemy vessel and
must not he used for any other pur.
pose whatsoever" The two bcllig.
crrnis ar" h~opelessly at odds upon
The meaning Of the word defensive.
and it is therefore to he apprelendcd
that neutral rights viii, bc In craver
danger than ever.
Race Segregation In -. Louis.