The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-03-07
STAYS BY WILSON
Senator Sutherland Opposes
Warming to Americans.
Utah Republican Delivers Fiery
Address i'm Senate.
SHIP MAY ARM FOR DEFENSE
Citizens of e. S. Have light on
Such Vessels.
Must Not Change Sub Rule,
Says Committee Member.

Washington. March 7.-Discussing
| the armed ship issue in the senate,
Senator Sutherland of Utah, a Repub-
lican member of the foreign relations
| committee, stood squarely behind the
president in his policy in dealing with
Germany in the submarine negotia-
| ton.
| IT do not want war at any time
said Senator Sutherland, land 1 pray
God that it may not come now, but l
| would rather have war with all its sac
rifices and suffering than that this ma
ton, with its long history of heroism
and glory should play the poltroon
when confronted by supreme nation
| al duty, because it places a greater
value upon its ease than upon its
| honor.
| Il shall never give my consent to
| the issuance of a formal and official
notice such as has been proposed,
which, if not needed, would without
minimizing our duty in the yeast, have
| the effect of embarrassing and weak
ening our moral standing if we should
once more be under the sad necessity
of seeking PREPARATION for the destruc-
| ton of the lives of our people.
Must Not Change Law.
| 1.-The proposition now insisted upon
badly stated" he declared, lis sim
ply this, that when a new engine of
| destruction is invented that can not
be made entirely effective without vio-
| lating the law, the law is ipso facto
automatically modified. Under these
| circumstances my own view of the
matter is that the new weapon must
yield to the law and not that the law
must yield to the new weapon.
eff we concede that the rule no
longer applies to ships armed for de-
l.
face a probable condition much more
serious than that involved in the de-
struction of an armed vessel without
warning. To concede the right of a
submarine to sink a vessel SO armed
without giving opportunity for crew
land passengers to escape in safety will
be to invite the sinking of unarmed
vessels without warning as WELL since
it is well nigh impossible for the Of
ficers of a submarine to determine in
advance whether a given vessel is
armed or not.
Right to Arm for Defense.
1.-THE question next arises-and, in
deed, it is really the crucial question
shall our citizens be officially advised
to forbear from travelling on belliger-
ent merchant vessels armed for de-
Tense only? Or indeed shall we &C
farther and forbid their doing so I'M
der penalty for disobedience? If 1 am
correct in what 1 have already said
namely, that these merchant ships
have the right to carry defensive arm
| ament, it follows that such a ship has
the same status as though unarmed
and that the right of neutral citizen
to transport his goods or travel upor
either is the same and not a different
right and that in fact, is the decision
of our own supreme court in a great
| case decided many years ago and
never since overruled or modified.
IF, therefore, a citizen take passa sc
upon a ship so armed and lose his life
by 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 iT
an exercise of a clear right has beer
deprived of his life by the deliberately
Illegal act of the belligerent govern.
ment which sent the submarine on its
mission of death. l can conceive of nc
other position for this government tc
assume and unless it is willing to for.
felt the respect of mankind by be.
coming a craven thing, it must be pre-
| pared to sustain that position at what
ever cost or consequence Senator
Sutherland also opposed any change il
the rule with respect to the sale OF
munitions of war, or armed merchant
ships for defense, asserting that any
, such changes now would be an un-
neutral act