New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-10-18
U.BOATS AND SEA WARFARE
Do They Lose Cruiser Character
When They Enter Our Porbl
To th. Editor of The Tribune.

Sir. Many VI yVuA
have noted with surprise your COM
mendation of Secretary Lansing's no"
in reply TO the request Of the Entente
Allies that submarines of belligeren'
movers be denied the use Of our ports
You suggest that our governments
position in permitting them to use
our ports like ordinary naval vessels
was Sound and logical" because 1)
TO deny it would involve changing the
rules Of naval warfare during the
progress Of a war, and (2) because. if
we insist that U-boats must be classed
as cruisers when they engage in COM
merce destroying, we must give them
all the privileges Of cruisers when
they enter our waters and ports"
Now, undoubtedly to change a we'll
established rule of naval warfare dur
ing war will Justly be deemed unneu-
trail by the belligerent whose interests
are thereby injured. Such was the
answer in substance given by our State
| Department to Austria Hungary when
we were asked to prevent the export
| of munitions Of war. But you will
note that this is not among the rea-
sons given by Secretary Lansing IN
the note in question, perhaps because
on the point at issue there was no rule
established at all when the present
war began. Our government was
! therefore free to frame new rule on
the subject, based upon right reason
and a farsighted view Of our national
interests, whether at war or in peace.
Has this been done? The Secreta-
rvs note is dated August 81, and was
therefore written prior to the recent
visit of the U-53 to Newport-the first
occasion in our history that the ques-
ton arose. No precedents brand the
State Department, although it is said
that Holland and Denmark among the
sore beset neutrals of Europe have
found that enlightened self-interest
requires that both submarines and
aeroplanes be denied the privileges Of
their territory.
That Secretary Lansing might con-
sistently have enforced the rules of
so-called Cruiser warfare" on u
boats when dealing with their mer-
chant prizes and still have held that
they were not such cruisers as were
entitled to the privileges of our ports
will appear more fully if we consider
that in the one case we are dealing
with the absolute right of non-com-
Blatant to his life and in the other
case are dealing with a question Of
the maintenance of our neutrality as
nation.
This question Of our neutrality was
the real question which was raised by
the Allies note to the United States, TO
which our Secretary of State has made
somewhat curt and not over-cour-
teous reply. Now, no nation may claim
as of right TO harbor its vessels OF
war in neutral nations ports. As
was said by the commissioners under
the Treaty of Washington in the
Geneva award on account of the Ala
bama claims:
"The privilege Of Internationally
accorded TO vessels of war has been
admitted into international law, not as
an absolute right, but solely as a pro-
, ceeding founded on the principle Of
courtesy and mutual Difference be-
tween nations, and, therefore, can
never be appealed to for the protec-
tion of acts done in violation Of neu-
trality" g Wharton's Digest, 63O)
The real question to be decided,
then, is whether in the case of craft
which can submerge at will we can
enforce the neutral duties which we
owe and for which we may be held
liable in damages after the war if we
are negligent and fail to use "due
diligence" as that term is exemplifed
and defined in the Geneva decision. 1t
is we'll known that one submarine can
not trace another when either or both
may be submerged; also that surface
craft are helpless against them. The
question is, then, how can we enforce
against them the rules necessary 20
our neutrality To the lay mind the
answer is not clear. Let US trust that
our State Department has taken eoun-
sci with experienced naval officers
before answering the recent Allied
memorandum. y. Y. u.
New York, Oct. 10, 1916.