Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-03-07
Mr.. Sutherland Would Hold
Nations to Account for Sea
Attacks on Americans.
HITS "SPINELESS POLICY
OF RETREAT AND SCUTTLE"
Republican Senator Backs President
in Armed Ship Controversy. d.
However.

Instead OF forever telling our
citizens to run, | should like for
once to hear somebody bid them
stand, with the assurance that
their government will stand with
them" said Senator Sutherland OF
Utah, addressing the Senate today
on the armed merchant vessel
question.
He aligned himself with the
President SO far as his position
against warning American citl-
zens off armed merchantmen is
concerned, but he attacked the
administration for its "spineless
policy of retreat and scmttle-the
policy that, among other things,
has ordered our people to aban-
don their rights in Mexico and
that has made us flee our own
plain duty in the Philippines.
Il do not want war at any time" said
Senator Sutherland. "and l pray God
that it may not come now; but 1 would
rather have war. with all its sacrinces
and suffering. than that this nation:
with its long history of heroism and
glory, should play the poltroon when
confronted by a supreme national duty
because it places greater value upon
it's ease than upon it's honor.
II am one of those who desire peace
the senator continued, but a nation,
when all other means fall: that would
not resent a fragrant and illegal attack
upon the lives of its own citizens Is
only less detestable than man who
will not fight for his wife and children
And. believing as 1 do about that, II
the life of an American citizen 10 again
taken by the illegal and deliberate
sinking without warning of a merchant
ship. unarmed or armed only for de,
Tense. that this government should hold
the offending nation to a stern reckon
ing. 1 shall never give my consent 70
potice such as has been proposed.
which, IL not needed. would. without
minimizing our duty in the least, nave
the effect of embarrassing and weak.
once more be under the sad necessity
Of seeking reparation for the destruc-
ton of the lives Of our people.
Discusses Legal Status.
Senator Sutherland discussed the
legal status of armed merchant ships
under international law and the rela-
ton thereto of the newly developed
submarine.
"The proposition now insisted upon.
badly stated" he declared. lis simply
this. that when a new engine of de-
struction is invented that cannot be
made entirely effective without violat-
ing the law, the law is ipso facto au-
tomatically modified. Under these cir
cumstances my own view OF the mat
ter Is that the new weapon must yield
to the law and not that the law must
yield to the new weapon.
IF we concede that the rule no
longer applies to ships armed for de-
tense alone we must be prepared to
face a probable condition much more
struction of an armed vessel without
warning. To concede the right OF a
submarine to sink a vessel SO armed
without giving warning and oppor-
tunity for crew and passengers to es-
cape safely will be to invite the sink
ing of unarmed vessels without warn
ing as well, since it is well nigh i'm
possible for the officers of submarine
to determine in advance whether
given vessel is armed or not.
No Immunity in Fact.
IF. therefore. the commander of a
submarine claims to act upon appear
ances, we shall never be able to deter
mine whether these appearances justi-
fed his conclusion until after the vessel
and her crew and passengers have gone
to the bottom of the sea, and in some
cases not even then. The result will
rryhy
sessing immunity in theory, will have
none in fact.
THE question next arises-and. in
deed, it is really the crucial question
shall our citizens be officially advised
TO forbear from travelling upon bellig-
erent merchant vessels armed for de-
Tense only? Or. indeed, shall we go
further, and forbid their doing SO under
nenaIty for disobedience? If I am cor
rect in what 1 have already said. name
Nv. that these merchant ships have the
right to carry defensive armament, it
follows that such a ship has the same
status as though unarmed, and that
the right of a neutral citizen to trans
mort his goods or travel upon either is
the same. and not a different right; and
that, in fact. is the decision OF our own
surname Court in a great case decided
MANY years ago, and never since over
ruled or modified.
..Tf therefore, a citizen take passage
upon a ship SO armed and lose his life
Nv the sinking of the ship without
warning. what must be the contention
and claim of this government? To my
mind. clearly this. That the citizen, in
the exercise of clear right. has been
derived of his life by the deliberately
Illegal act of the belligerent govern
ment which sent the submarine on its
mission of death.
senator Sutherland also opposed any
change in the rule with respect to the
sale OF munitions of war or arminE
ships for defense, asserting
hat anv such changes now would be an
unneutral act.