TaÌˆgliche Omaha tribuÌˆne. [volume] (Omaha, Nebr.) 1912-1926, 1916-03-24
The Right Of Submarines to
Attack Armed Merchant Vessels

AlLdW HIIIlHn mHICldlll FHSSHIS
The question as to the right Of
an armed vessel OF a ~belllgereHt u
notice prior to attack is an important
one. II must be conceded that notice
was lever given In any war that has
ever taken place between England
and France, England and Spain
France and Spain, France and Ger
many, the United States and Eng.
land, or the United States and the
Southern C~onfederacy. That there
Us no precedent that would require
II. that It was never considered by
any nation prior to Oct. is, 1907 that
such notice was required. II II is
now required 1t Is solely by reason
that the proceedings OF the Hague
tribunal of Oct. IS, 1907, require such
notice. 1t Ia said to be based on the
following resolution:
Convention relative to the con.
version OF merchant ships into var
ships.
"By His Majesty, the German
Emperor, King of Prussia. etc.
"A merchant ship converted into
a warship cannot have the rights
and duties accrueing to such vessel,
unless 1t Is placed under the direct
authority, immediate control and re-
sponsibllity Of the power whose flag
1t flies.
"The crew must be subject to
military discipline.
every merchant ship converted
into warship must observe in its
operations the laws and customs of
war"
This resolution was introduced and
passed for the benefit of the con-
verified merchant ships and to give
to them the right OF war ships SO
that they would stand in the same
position as war ships relative to
c~learances, prizes, etc. There does
not seem to be a word In the resolu-
ton that notice is required before
being attacked. The resolution was
not for the purpose of giving a
greater right to the boat as a
merchant ship, but 1t was solely for
the giving to it the right of a war
ship. Had there been any intention
of changing the entire law then
existing relative to armed merchant
vessels OF belligerents, it would seem
that 1t would have been SO expressed
as to remove any question as to the
meaning. 1t is admitted that
merchant vessels are being armed
for a purpose, and it is said for
protection, but in fact it is wes!
known that the vessels OF the bellig-
erents are engaged in aiding bellig.
erents by the carrying of supplies of
contraband of war. Where is to be
the dividing line as to the amount
Of armament to be carried before 1t
becomes a war vessel? Who is to
decide this question? II 1t can carry
n cannon. can it carry ten? Who
Is to decide the size of the cannon
it can carry?
Is the submarine to wait until hit
by the shots from the merchantmen
before it can reply? In case the
United States gets into the war with
some European country must the
commander of one of our vessels
wait until he has received the broad
side of an armed merchantmen before
he can reply? Is this the position
for the United States with its large
coast line which must be defended
by its navy to take? Should not the
United States rather than any other
country stand for the right of a var
vessel to act when the occasion re
auires without delay more that the
law Of nations actually demands?
1t is certainly the duty of a nation
to protect as far as possible its
sailors and not submit them to un-
necessary danger, as 1t would do if
1t required that they could not de-
fend themselves or attack when in
the presence Of danger until after
the other belligerent has acted.
IL as was stated by the State De-
partment Of the United States on
Jan. Is, 1916, in speaking of the
armament of merchant ships by small
caliber guns, that any such arma
ments of merchant vessels now might
be regarded as offensive armament"
they would certainly be subject to
attack without notice II the war
vessel of another %belligerent saw
fit to regard it as an offensive
armament.
AS international law is based on
and consists Of ~preeedents that are
so numerous as TO have become a
custom, or Of an agreement by
practically all civilized nations, and
1t Is practically conceded there is
40 precedent for requiring the giving
Of notice to an armed merchantmen
before attack, and the requirements
by agreement being at the most
extremely vague, why should the
United States undertake to force this
extreme construction? While it Is
clearly the duty Of every American
citizen when the country is involved
TO support it, II is also the duty of
the country to act fairly and honest
iy, without fear or favor between
belligerents prior thereto.
- MJNEP n MORTON