Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1917-03-07

full examination Of all legal questions
referring thereto, the Austro-Hungar-
ian government could not come to
the conviction that subjects OF neu-
trail states are entitled to travel un-
molested on enemy vessels"
For Neutral Ships Only.
"The principle that neutrals in war
time also should enjoy the advan-
tages of freedom OF the seas refers
only to neutral vessels, not to neu-
trail persons on board enemy vessels.
because belligerents, as is we'll known,
are entitled to prevent the enemy's
sea traffic as far as they are able.
Being in possession of the necessary
war means and considering it neces-
sary for the attainment of their war
aims, they can prohibit sea traffic of
enemy merchantmen on pain OF their
destruction, provided they have pre-
viously announced this to be their
intention, so that everyone. whether
enemy or neutral, may be enabled to
avoid endangering life. Even if
doubts should arise regarding the
justihableness of such procedure and
if the enemy should threaten repris-
ais, then this would be an affair for
settlement between the belligerents
only, who, as generally recognized,
are entitled to make the high seas
the scene of military operations and
TO oppose any interference with their
enterprises and to decide for them
selves what measures should be taken
against enemy sea traffic,
in such cases neutrals have no
other legitimate interest and, there
fore, no other legal claim that that
the belligreents inform them in time
of prohibitions directed to the enemy
that they can avoid entruSting their
lives and their goods to enemy ves-
sells.
Rights Of Belligerents.
THE Austro-Hungarian govern
ment can suppose that the Washing
ton cabinet will agree with these ex-
plantations which, according to the
Austro-Hungarian governments con-
viction, are unassailable; as other
wise, disputing their correctness
would doubtless be tantamount to
saying-which certainly does not cor
respond to the opinion Of the United
States-that neutrals must be free to
intefcrc with military operations of
belligerents or even directly assume
the office of Judging as to the war
means which are to be employed
against enemies.
Neutrals Must Take Risks.
ut appears that it also would be
fragrant misunderstanding if a neu-
trail government, only to enable its
subjects to travel on enemy vessels
while they as readily and even with
far greater security could use neutral
vessels, should fall to arms with a
belligerent power which perhaps was
fighting for its existence not to speak !
Of the most serious abuses for which
the road would be. left clear if the
belllgerent were to be forced to lower |
arms before every neutral who desired |
to use enemy vessels for his business
or pleasure trips. Never was there
the slightest doubt that neutral sub
jects themselves have to bear all the
loss which they suffer by entering on
land territory where warlike opera
tons are taking place. There cob
Viously is no reason to allow differ
ent principles for war on sea the more
so as at the second peace conference
the wish was expressed that until the
time when war on sea should have
found settlement by agreements, the
law in force for war on land should
be employed as far as this was pos
sible also for war on sea.
IN the spirit OF what was previ-
ously said, the regulation that warn
ing must be given to a ship which is
sunk uhdergoes exceptions OF various
kinds, under certain circumstances, as
.or instance as mentioned by the
American government in cases of
light and resistance, when vessels
nay be destroyed without warning;
while in other cases warning before
he departure Of vessel is necessary.
The Austro-Hungarian government