Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1916-02-15
THE LAW, AND ARMED MERCHANTMEN

The all absorbing question before the department
of state is as to the status of armed merchantmen Ger
many has served notice this government that after
February 20 it will attack armed merchant vessels with
out warning.
1t is known that England France, Russia and Italy
will not consent to dsarming their vessels already hav
ing filed objections to the United States changing its
policy in this regard.
This very question as to whether neutral could put
his goods an armed merchantmen decided in this
country in the case of the Nerede British ship mount
ing ten guns which had been chartered by a Spanlard
and which was captured by an American privateer
The opinion was handed down by Chief Justice
Marshall who declared: "The beligerent had perfect
right to arm in his defense and this right did not
interfere with that of the neutral to transport his goods
in beligerent vessel
The decisions Of the United States supreme court be-
the law OF the land and this is evidently the law as
it now exists The constitution requires the president to
take care "that the laws be faithfully executed"
The dispatches concerning the say this brings up
two questions of vital Importance to the people, and thus
enumerateS them
l. Can the executive branch of the government put in
force foreign policy which in violation of the decisions
of the supreme court?
2. Will not the policy of the government lead to
reduction of tonnage connecting with American
ports and cause a greater congestion of freight and
rise in freight rates all of which will bear on Shippers?
The answer to the first problem apparently would be
in the negative AS to the other problem, it has nothing
to do with the matter
This is not question of expediency but of right 1t
is not question whether will hurt American trade but
whether it is duty between the United States and
countries friendly to her. who unfortunately at war
with each other 1t is not question to what the allies
or anyone else may do to trade, but what we
shall do to act fairly and honestly with all of them II
we do right and suffer in business for it, we will sur
vye but if do what know to be wrong in order to
protect foreign trade will deserve the scOn and
contempt of the warning nations, and of the world.
1t is principles not business we are called on to decide
and our decision must be fair and honest whether it
hurts or helps business With all due Difference to the
great chief Justice Marshall it strikes us that to the lay
mind at least his decision paradoXical Followed
to its ultimate conclusion it would raise questions even
more grave than those confronting the country.
If an enemy vessel cannot attack an armed merchant
man without warning, would it not make it possible by
carrying goods on batteship to prevent an enemy at
tackng her without first warning her to stop and show
her papers?
Of one thing we can rest assured and that is that
whichever way the matter settled it will cause the one
whose position is decided against to be angry at us Ii
we sustain Gemanys contention the allies will be eX
ceedngly wrathy and if we stand by the allies position
Germany and her allies will be equally sore So all we
can do is to decide as nearly right and take our
medicine whether we like it or not.
1t is quite probable only such ships carried supplies
to England and France would reach our ports if we
decide against the allies contentious and these would
have to comply with our decision and be unarmed. 1t
would probably cut off most of our foreign trade but that
is misfortune that should not bias our Judgment or af
feet our decision
1t is far from unusual but always embarrassing to
4 i i