TaÌˆgliche Omaha tribuÌˆne. [volume] (Omaha, Nebr.) 1912-1926, 1916-03-03
ARMED MERCHANTMEN.
(Chicago Tribune, March End. }

The present issue between the German government and u own re-
spectng the conduct Of submarine operations seems to be this: Shall German
submarines concede to armed merchantmen Of the enemy the first shot
because citizens Of the United States have elected to travel on such
merchantmen ?
The structure Of the submarine is and at this stage Of It's DEVELOPMENT
must be such that the first properly directed shot is virtually certain to be
the last, in that only one shot even that Of a one FOUNDER is fatal to the
Put in another form, the issue is whether a merchantmen armed
sufficiently to destroy a submarine with one shot is defensivey or Extensively
Under a rule formulated before the creation of the submarine the
presence Of a relatively small gun is held consistent with the presumption
of defensive armament.
That rule was founded N the facts A small gun could not. seriously
mjure a warship 1t could not be made offensive at the will of the conn.,
mander of the merchantmen summoned to surrender.
The rule does not square with the facts of the submarine. The prin-I
ciple upon which the rule is founded does not apply to them. A n FOUNDER
can destroy a submarine. The presumption that such a gun will be used
only IN defense must rest entirely upon the will Of the commander or hs|
instructions.
The position now taken by our government therefore Is that a Germanl
submarine approaching a British, French, or Italian merchantmen which
carries a gun capable Of DESTROYING such nbmayine sbau cbauenoe +bal
to surrender and accept the hazard of destruction.
Furthermore. the presence of defensive armament m merchantmen was
justified by facts nov no~nexstent-namey, the practice of privateenng and
the existence of pirates. As pirates have disappeared from European watersI
and prvateering is no longer permissible under international law, no pre-
sumption Of defense can attach to the presence of guns on merchantmen.
Enemy ships consist Of only two kinds, combatant and noncombatant
a ship is noncombatant it will not be equipped to combat. If a ship is
equipped with armament sufficient to DESTROY a. enemv varsbip. az in IN the
Of a merchantmen mounting a six inch, four inch, or on FOUNDER gun,
craft, it cannot claim the character Of an @nnarma5@ ~ban+m by
should be held what in fact it is, a combatant ship.
The object Of any armament on a ship of the beigerents is one and one
only, % use against enemy warships-to be explicit, the submarine. It is
therefore an armed ship and the distinction is to defensive and offensive
armament founded on the practice Of privateerng and piracy, and having
40 application to use against enemy war craft, is NOT involved.
This is the issue IS between Great Britain and Germany.
What is the issue between the United States and Germany? 1t is
whether the right of citizens to travel on unamed merchant ships of BEL
igerst nationally is a right to travel an merchant ships of Great Britain
armed in fact against German submarines.
Or put in another way the issue is: Does the presence of Americans
n a British ship compel a German submarine to allow the British ship to
Of by challenging it accept the hazard Of destruction?
IL this We're conceded Great Britain by mounting guns On ifs merchant
men and Americans by travelling on them can insure such part of the British
merchant marine from otherwise lawful operations by Germany againstI
are IN fact armed and therefore combatant enemy craft.
The object Of arming the allies merchant craft is tt protect them from
apture or destruction by German or Austrian submarines. Such destruction
OF great importance to the central powers in their conduct of the war
nd a legitimate measure of sea warfare. British shipping is conveying
ecessay supplies to the allies. The interruption of this service is of al
rat II not vital Importance to the central powers. If it is to the interest
T the United States to insure this supply, the government should do so asl
z ally and not under the pretense of defending neutrality.
The president asserted the right of neutrals to. travel on @unarned"l
OF the beligaents. He asserted the duty Of war craft to chaI-I
enge "unarrned ud unresstng" merchant ships. Both these contentious
ave been accepted by the German government.
Yet we now assert that by virtue of a rule framed to meet facts mott
ow involved merchant ships armed in fact are not armed, and must bel
ceeped a S unarmed by Germany because Americans m travelling on them
he principle that rules Of international law must not be altered during tbe
OF the war begs the whole question Of whether the rule as tol
offensive armament applies to merchantmen armed in fact ofensivelyI
gaint submarines
If American honor is involved in this controversy, it calls upon us to
o a@ act IN me lace to apply % them principles, not a mere formula,
nd to adopt fearessly the course which justice dictates.
Il IS American sympathies or interests that are involved, let us not
ak about honor and let IS consider senslby and canddly what thoser
interests are.