New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-01-30
Playing Cermany's Cards.

lively and instructive correspondence deal
ing with the right of Germans to murder
Americans on the high seas began TO.
sacken. the Imperial Government fastened
on passage IN one Of our notes as de
serving Of thanks" This passage was
interpreted as declaration by the Presi-
dent that he was ready ito communicate
and suggest proposals to the government
Of Great Britain with particular reference
% the alteration of maritime war" and 1t
was intimated that the Imperial Govern
ment would always be glad to make use
Of the good Offices of the President" and
in the present case wished him success.
Though great pains have been taken to
make 1t clear that our Government Is act
ing without suggestion from any foreign
government" and is concerned only ITO
save innocent lives" the note lately ad-
dressed to the belligerents by way of es-
tablishing new laws for the conduct of
merchantmen at sea will of course be ac-
cepted In Germany as an earnest of the
Presidents eagerness TO strike a bargain
in the tedious discussion over the Ameri-
can lives lost when the Lusitania was
sunk.
From time TO time the Imperial Gov
eminent showed an inclination TO agree
that II certain concessions could be wrung
from the enemy II might be possible TO re
consider the conditions established and
practised by Germany In her submarine
warfare on commerce. Some Of the more
important concessions now proposed by
Secretary Lansing as a convenient means
of saving innocest lives are exactly in ac-
cordance with German demands
If we can only secure another diplomatic
victory by persuading Germany's foes 10
comply with these demands we may con-
trive to XIII two birds with one stone. II
is true that the high ground taken in the
first note on the rights Of American trav-
ellers will have 10 be Abandoned; but as
that has been TO all intents and purposes
surrendered already, go the obvious aim
to-day IS TO find some other way Of pro
curing Germany's agreement TO a disa-
the purpose. The German notes on the
case Of the Lusitania have made it pretty
clear that there are certain conditions that
would be very acceptable to the Imperial
Government and to the German people at
large, and the only difficulty was to offer
these In form sufficiently acceptable in
the eyes Of the other belligerents. The
simplest way was TO interlard the German
demands with commonplace which none
Of them has ever disputed or could pos
sibly take exception to, and offer the lot
as a new code. This is what has been
done.
Germany has always insisted that mer-
chant vessels must not carry arms even
for self-defence if they would be immune
from unprovoked attack. II is not denied
that in former naval wars defensive meas
ures were permissible, but the argument
is that submarines are frail craft and
might be sunk by single lucky hit. Our
State Department has apparently been
converted to this view being Every much
impressed" by the argument, and accord
ingly II is proposed that merchant vessels
should not in future be permitted to carry
any armament at all.
But If they are not TO defend them
selves, neither are they TO make any eff
fort TO escape, but must promptly obey
any order from a belligerent vessel 70
STOP" Here again il is clear that Ger
man argument has prevailed, for in the
second Lusitania note we were Surprised
70 find the Imperial German Government
contendnc that an effort on the part of a
merchantmen 70 escape capture and Sc
cure assistance alters the obligation of
the officer seeking 70 make the capture"
or permits him 10 sink vessel which has
rot made continued efforts TO escape"
The price Germany's enemies are asked
20 pay for sparing the lives OF non-com-
hatants and neutrals would be more likely
10 meet with serious consideration were It
not for certain circumstances within every
mans memory and observation. 1t is OBJ
vious in the first place that no protection
whatever is guaranteed by the engagement
asked for. II was sufficient for Germany
in the case Of the Arabic that the sub
marine commander thought the merchant
man chad tho intention of attacking" He
presumed at least that an attack was
"planned," and that was enough. When
we Objected, the answer of the Imperial
Government was that even the obligation
10 grant indemnity was by no means
acknowledged; no, not "even If the com
lnander should have been mistaken"
With so splendid latitude in the way
of mistakes, what is the use Of discussing
new laws TO govern the conduct of war at
sea? Why discuss laws at all when one
party openly defes every law? The at
tempt TO establish new code adapted to