The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1916-03-09
MOORE VERSUS MARSHALL

Some members of Congress have
been advised that John Bassett
Moore, former counselor of the
State Department, is opposed to
President Wilson in the matter OF
American use Of armed merchant
ships; that he believes Americans
should be warned not to travel on
such vessels; that he holds sub
marine a belligerent warship, with
the right of visit and search, and in
sists that guns carried on merchant
ships are for the purpose Of resist
ing this right of submarines.
Mr.. Moore is a distinguished au-
thority in international law, and his
opinion is entitled to consideration.
But it is difficult to see what the end
might be if it were conceded that
armament sufficient to defend mer-
chairman against submarine were
sufficient reason for keeping Ameri-
cans off the merchantmen.
Obviously, if American passengers
may not use defensively armed mer-
chantmen, then American goods
ought not to use such ships; and if
American goods may not use such
ships, how on earth shall American
goods be transported?
1t has never been assumed that
merchantmen are forbidden to arm
for defense. The United States has
taken and uniformly sustained the
exact contrary to that doctrine. The
law of this country was laid down by
Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall in an un-
answerable opinion in the case of the
Nereide, and that has been the
American position ever since. 1t is
precisely the opinion President Will
son is supporting now. In that case
the Chief Justice said:
"A belligerent has n perfect right 4
arm In his own defense, and neutra
has perfect right to transport hi
goods In IA beligerent vessel. Thes'
rights do not interfere with each other
The neutral has no control over the bel
liGerent right to arm-ought he to b.
accountable for the exercise of II
The object of the neutral is tn
transportation of his goods. His con
nection with the vessel which transport
them is the same whether that vesse
be armed or unarmed. The act OF arm
ing is not his; II Is the act Of a part.
who has a right to do so. He NEEDLE
not with the armament nor with tn
war. Whether his goods were ON boar
or not, the vessel would be armed an
would sail His goods do not contribut
to the armament further than tn
freight he pays and freight he woul
pay were the vessel ,unarmed. 1t is diff
ficult to perceive In this argument any
thing which docs not also apply to a.
unarmed vessel. In both instances II
tho right gnd the duty of the carrie
to avoid capture and to prevent I
search. There is no difference except 4
the degree of capacity to carry thi
duty into effect. The argument woul
operate against the rule which permit
the neutral merchant to employ u bel
ligerent vessel without imparting to hi
goods the belligerent character. III
argument respecting resistance stand
upon the same ground with that whic
respects arming. Both are Lawful
, Neither of them is chaTgeable to tn
goods or their owner where he ha
taken no part in IL. They are incident
: To the character of the vessel, and ma
always occur where the carrier is be-
ligcrent. II the neutral character of tn
goods Is forfeited by the resistance c
. the belltgercnt vessel, why Is not tn
neutral character of the passengers fol
, feited by the same cause? The mastC
and crew are prisoners of war; VIII
r are not those passengers who did nc
= engage in the conflict also prisoners
y That they are not would seem to til
\ court to afford strong argument
- favor of the goods. The law woul
ODeratC in the Same manner IN hofh Z"