Evening star., 1916-04-20
The Submarine Crisis.

The doctrine announced by the PreSl-
versy of restriction by international
law of the use of the submarine against
any merchantmen. neutral or belliger-
ent, was very broad and sweeping-too
broad, many thought. II seemed to i'm
pose upon us an equal obligation to
fight for our rights as neutrals on our
own ships and on other neutral ships,
and for our immunities rs non comba
tants on British ships. which we enjoy
only in common with the British on
these ships and which we cease to en- joy
if the British aboard cease to be non
combatant. Our rights on our own
ships under our own flag are inalienable
except by our own acts. and are to be
defended to the extreme of war. Our
non-combatant immunities on belliger-
ent merchantmen are shifting and un-
certain. not dependent on our own con
duct, but on that of the British on those
ships, who may in a moment forfeit the
non-combatant immunities of any Amer
leans aboard by becoming combatant
themselves.
But the original German doctrine to
which the President responded was
equally broad and sweeping, including in
its warning away from a section of the
high seas neutral as well as belligerent
merchantmen, in plain violation of in
ternational law. And in practice as well
as in precept Germany has failed to
make suitable discrimination between
neutral and belligerent ships, between
non-combatant immunities and neutral
rights. As shown by the Presidents
impressive arraignment German subma
rines have torpedoed indiscriminately
without adequate warning every kind of
merchantmen, unlawfully destroying
American lives. And very few Ameri-
cans in the light of these recognized
facts will fail to indorse heartily the
Presidents demand on penalty of sew
erance of diplomatic relations that Ger
UudHN ueCidic anu cHtCt
an abandonment of its present methods
Of submarine warfare against passen-
ger and freight carrying vessels" The
German government should without hesi-
tation abandon the purpose indicated by
the acts of its submarines ''to prosecute
relentless and indiscriminate warfare
apoipSf yesselS of commerce bv tho 1,se
of submarines without regard to inter
national law and the dictates of human
ity.
The issues should be separated and
stated in terms that are clean cut and
unmistakable. The United States should
not go to war in the alleged interest of
humanity to prevent Germany from u.s.
ing the submarine against any belliger-
ent ships but those which we land Great
Britain define as warships. We ought
not to go to war to protect in their
claim to the immunities of non -comba-
tants British sailors who, Germany says,
are in fact combatants On the other
hand, Germany ought not to go to war
with us, or permit severance of diplo-
matte relations, in defense of the in
discriminate, lawless and murderous pol
icy, practically applied by its subma-
rine commanders, in torpedoing with
out warning neutral ships, and ships of
the enemy which are unarmed under
international law.
Since the issue is not clean cut, com.
pelling war, and since neither people
wishes war the obligation is upon the
two governments to prevent war.
Germany's response to the just Ameri.
can demand is anxiously awaited.