The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1917-03-10

uon arising from submarine Warfar,
because it touched the laws Of hu.
manity to avoid misunderstanding
between the monarchy and the Amer
lean union.
Above all the Austro Hungarian
government desires to emphasize that
it is also it's opinion that the thesi:
set up by the American government
WI IN also is represented in various
learned records, that enemy mor.
chantmen, apart from cases Of at
tempted flight and resistance, must
not be destroyed without precautions
being taken for the safety OF the per-
sons aboard, forms so to say. the
Kernel of the whole subject Regard
ed from q higher standl oint, thu
thesis can, of course, be ranked in q
further suggestive connection, and
from that view its domain of appli-
cation can be marked out more oX-
actiy.
From the laws Of humanity which
the Austro- Hungarian government
and the Washington cabinet t;,kl in
the same manner as Judging the lines
the more general principle can be de-
rived that when executing the right
OF destroying enemy merchantmen
the loss of human life should as far as
possible be avoided. TO this principle
the belligerent can only do justice
by issuing warning before eXercising
the right. Therein he can choose
the way which the aforementioned
thesis of the American government
indicates, according to which the
commander of the war vessel himself
gives warning SO that the crew and
passengers could bring themselves to
safety in the last moment or the Gov
eminent of belligerent states can, if
this is recognized as an inevitable ne
cessity of war, issue warning Of full
effect also before the departure OF
the vessel which is to be sunk, or
finally, it can, if it establishes exter-
sive measures against enemy sea
tra lie, employ general warning for
all enemy vessels in question.
That the principle according to
which care must be taken for the
safety of the persons aboard under
goes exceptions the American gov
ernment itself recognized. But the
Austro- Hungarian government be-
lieves that destruction without warm
ing is admissible not only when a
vessel fees or offers resistance. It
appears-to mention only one ox-
the character Of tho
vessel itself also must be taken into
consideration. Merchantmen or other
private vessels which carry military
or arms aboard in order TO
hostile acts of any kind, may,
accordiny to valid rights, be destroy
ed without hesitation.
'The Austro- Hungarian govern
mont need not call attention to the
fact that the belligcrcnt is released
OF all consideration for human life if
his opponent sinks enemy merchant
men without previous warming as hap
ppDp1 with +Jo ,.O...oI,, 1-i-... ~
MANI, Dubrovink (Austrian). Xacrcb
(Austrian), etc, which already has
been repeatedly Censurcd, and in this
respect the Austro-Hungarian gov
ernment never returned like for like.
notwithstanding it's uncontcstod right
In the course of the entire war Aus
tro-Hungarian war vessels have not
sunk one enemy merchantmen with
out previous. if only genera, warn
ing.
The repeatedly mentioned thesis o.
the United States government also al
lows various interpretations. in so far
namely. as it is doubtful whether Is
is asserted FROM various sides, only
armed resistance justihes the destruc-
ton of vessel with persons on board
or resistance OF another kind; as is
shown If the crew Intentionally neg
lects to take the passengers into boata
the Ancona case--or if the passen-
gers II msclves refuse to enter boats.
Acco -g 20 the opinion of the Aus
o-Hungarian government, the de-
struction of Il warned vessel without
rescuing persons aboard is admissible
in case Of the latter kind, because
otherwise it would be left 20 the in
dividual passenger to nullify the right
of belligcrcnts t. INK vessels.
'Moreovcr it may be pointed out
also that there is no unanimity a.s