The sun., 1916-01-13
ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
Does the Gun Justify Sinking the
ship without Warning?

articles on the question whether an
armed merchantmen may be torpedoed
without warning present the arguments
OF one side. Will you not print the fol-
lowing views of the other side. SO as to
enable a fair minded reader to come to
just conclusion?
1t is an admitted principle or In
| ternational law that 1nerchantman mas
a right to defend itself and to carry
arms for that purpose. and to do 20 does
not make II a war vessel.
This principle. though admitted. has
no proper application to the large
modern passenger ship. when the rule
was developed passenger travel by sea
was practically insignificant as the name
\ shows, merchantmen were used pri-
| marily to carry merchandise. lf the
| captain OF merohantinan. carrying per-
| haIs also dozen or two passengers
decided, on being hailed by an enemy,
| TO fight rather than to surrender. IL was
on his own responsibility and in pursu-
| ance of his primary duty to the owner
of the cargo. IL the few passengers
on board we're killed during the conflict
| that was a risk they ran In embarking
on a chip designed fundamentally to
carry safely It's cargo.
| Compare this situation TO large mod
ern passenger ship carrying thousands
Of passengers. 1t Is absolutely incou-
sistent with any Humanitarian principles
and a violation of the most fundamental
| civilized standards to allow the captain
| of such ship to inperl the lives of
his passengers by fghtIng an enemy
ship rather than stopping when hailed
| The captains duty Is no longer 10
| the owners OF ship or cargo to save
| their property. his sole duty is not TO
risk or endanger the lives Of his non
combatant passengers; he must insure
| their safety even though at the cost OF
losing both his ship and his cargo
| IL follows from this that no snip
designed primarily for passenger car
rlage should be permitted To have guns
| or armament. for II 1t has no right to
| use its guns even defensively. but should
| stop as soon as hailed, then IT has no
| need OF carrying them.
| That this view is sound is recognized
| by the action of our Government In en-
| tering into informal agreements with the
| Allies that no ships Of their sailing from
| our ports shall carry any armament
Let us now come TO the question OF
the right OF such an armed ship 10 be
| warned before being attacked. Clearly
| the ordinary urarmed merchantmen, mas
| such a right. though IL may be qucs-
| toned II the law of the future Will not
| take the right away from a ship carry
ing solely munitions and no passengers
| But how about a ship II armed right
| fully, as in the case Of n non-passenger
| carrying metchantman9 our answer u
this Is based frankly upon the principle
that the use of new method Of warfare
as submarines. justlfies new appnca-
tiou OF existing laws.
| That the principle g dangerous
! one IL willingly conceded, II applying
II leads TO violation OF principles OF
humanity, clearly 1t should no, be ap-
| piled FOR example. II employing new
| method of war ia Impossible without
| violating recognized standards OF civil
| lied war. then this new method cannot
be used. Again applying this principle
that changed conditions Justify changes
! IN the law may completely nullify all
| existing rules OF law. as is seen In the
| arguments OF the pro-Ally apologsts,
| who seek to Justify the gross violation
! OF neutral rights committed by their
/ governments.
Blu, merely because doctrine may be
| carried TO an unsound extreme does not
| prove the doctrine itself unsound The
| United States has expressly recognized
| the correctness of this doctrine. and in
its first note on the British blockade I:
| admitted that the use OF submarines
! justified "A relaxation Of one OF the eN-
, is,lug requirements of a blockade. And
| this was obviously correct; new coud.-
| flpnS pf Necessity demand new SppI4Ca-
| tions OF old principles.
| The principle being admitted. is the
case under discussion s legitimate APP
plicat.ou OF it, The general rule has
| been that a merChantman lost itS char
! aCt-r OF uon-combataut, with N" inn
mumty accorded thereto. by choosing -
| fight rather than surrender In the past
| this Iu.. has worked fairly TO both sides,
| Now. however, the submarine has ap-
| peared, and what occurs The eubua.
| rlne comes TO the surface to stop the
! merchantmen that lies there In AN uh-
! protected state: whereupou the mer-
| chairman decides II is too good 'han'"
10 miss. elects to fight, shoots and s.res
! the vulnerable submarine Is this "A far
situation" Can any rule OF international
! law claiming to be based on justice de-
/ ndud or expect belliGereuts to agree to
such a rule; Can il not fairy he urged
| that such heads | win, tails YOU lose
situation Is unjust Can II not be fairly
! said thar the NOR ha Gilman must choose
AZ the start whether II wants 1" II"
treated - uun-comhatant or not that
| when Il sails from port unarmcd 4
announces that II VIII not night and may
not be attacked. but that when 1t goes
J ont armed i thereby declares that il
| Will use its armament II Il has an op-
! portunity To. and therefore that sub
| marine ~ Justified IN acting on ms as.
sumption and need not risk its safety
10 stop and expose Itself 10 the mcr liant
mans firo'
II may be argued that aticr al per
| hass the merchantman has 10 intention
! or using Its guns, Certainly the Iona