Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-03-05
those which confronted US when the
resolution was first introduced.

resolution was first introduced.
discussion has also convinced the
people that their representatives in
Congress will not be driven into hasty
action when the proposition of declar-
ing war is placed before them.
luton will, ! am quite sure. deter
American citizens from taking passage
on the armed ships of the belliserent
on neutral vessels instead. OF course,
there may be a few exceptions to tins
rule for some havebrained people are
always looking for thrills
Il believe in an open sea, but ] see
no reason why American citizens, at
this particular time, should care to en-
danger their country's peace and
plunge it into war by seeking out and
unnecessarily sitting on dynamite
mines.
IF we are to maintain an open sea
for such travellers and tourists, then
let us by all means maintain an open
sea for the cotton, grain and other
products of the American farmers.
Senator Colt in Colloquy.
Senator Colt of Rhode Island. regard
ed as a constitutional lawyer, entered
into a colloquy with Senator McCumber
during the debate in the Senate of the
armed ship question yesterday after
noon, and his statements were aimed
to bring out the position which has
been taken by the President. Senator
McCumber was arguing In favor of his
warning resolution and also attacking
the contention that the international
law governing the arming of mer-
chantmen in the past should be regard
ed as fixed and unchanged BILE a pres
ent.
admits that a belligerent may change
the rules of international law by rea-
son of changed conditions in modern
warfare" said Senator Colt. or by rea-
son of national necessity, or by reason
of geographical position, does he not,
in fact, then undermine the whole sys-
TEN of International law, with the re-
suit that We have no guide to go by?'
Senator McCumber replied that in
ternational law is based upon condi-
lions and the reasons growing out of
conditions which justify it's existence.
Right Of self-Preservation.
I'VE must concede the right of self
preservation to every belligerent. even
though in the exercise of that right il
may interfere with our commerce or
may require that our citizens refrain
from travelling upon ships that are Ii
able to be sunk" he said.
Senator Colt asked If Senator Nc
Cumber believed that a neutral was
forced to obey international law as it
existed at the outbreak of hostilities
and that a belligerent is not obliged to
obey such rules.
There is one fundamental principle
of international law" said Senator Nc
-Cumber. and that is the right of every
nation to defend itself and to protect
itself against annihiliation. Every other
principle of information law must yield
to that superior right
u find no warrant for nation
changing the rules of international law
during the progress of a war" replied
the rules may then be changed by
agreement. If we admit that the
safety of a nation is a justifable ex-
cuse for evading the rules of interna-
tional law, then we undermine the
whole system and have no guide or
compass to direct u.s.
Senator McCumber asked if Senator
Colt believed that if the salvation Of
the United States depended upon re-
fusing to follow an international code,
the duty of the country would be. to
throw the old international code to the
winds.
In an Atmosphere of Force.
II believe we would do that" said
Senator Colt. We would act just as
the belligerents are acting today, be-
cause we would be in an atmosphere of
force. Conceding this. it does not alter
in any way the position % great
neutral power. which must insist that
the belligerents shall obey the rules
of international law"
The logic of the senator from Rhode
Island" replied Senator McCumber. lis
that While this country would ignore.
and would be justified in ignoring, in
ternational law, if the life of the ma
ton were at stake we should as a great
neutral power insist that others should
not exercise such a right. l confess
that l cannot agree with that philoso-
ply
In reply Senator Colt said:
German ysays that 1t invaded Bel
GUM on the ground of self-preservation:
that was the reason that justified it in
violating the neutrality of Belgium,
which it had agreed by treaty to hold as
ueutralized country. Every act of
either belligerent in violation of the ex-
istlng rules of international law is put
broadly upon the ground of self-preser-
walton. Does the senator think that the
invasion of Belgium was justified upon
the ground that it was necessary for the
self representation Of the German empire.
attacked as it was by the most powerful
nations In Europe
As an American citizen answered
Senator McCumber, Il am a neutral.
/ Therefore. ! shall express no opinion as
TO the rightfnlntss or wrongfulness of
Germanys action.
Representative Bailey Has
Talk With William ]. BRYAN
nm Hhrn,ad Chin" IceIJn