New Britain herald., 1917-03-06
individual passengers to nullify the rfght Of belligerents to sink vessels.
 WarUirR Not in E,vn1.arlr.

Individual passengers to uullify the ! raghf Of belligerents to sink vessels.
 Warning Not to Embark.
 Moreover. 1t may be pointed out also that there is no unani1nity as re- gards in which cases the sinking of neutral merchant1nen at all Is admis- sable. The obligation to issue warn ing immediately before sinking ves- sells leads, according to the opinion of the Austro- Hungarian government, on the one hand to harshness which could be avoided; on the other hand 1t is under circumstances calculated to injure the justifiate interests of bel- liserents In the first place 1t must not be overlooked that the rescue of persons is almost always left to mere chance. as the only choice remaining is to take them aboard war vessels which are exposed to any enemy influ- once, or to expose them in small boats to the dangers of the clements: so that it therefore corresponds much bet ter to the principles of humanity to prevent persons by timely warning, from using endangered vessels.
 "FurthermOre. notwithstanding care- full examination of all legal questions thereto, the Austro- Hungar- ian government could not come to the conclusion that subjects of neutral states are entitled to travel unmolest- ed on enemy vessels.
 ..The principle that neutrals in war time also should enjoy the advan- taxes of freedom of the seas refers only to neutral vessels, not to neu- tral persons on board enemy vessels, because belligerents. as we'll known. are, entitled to prevent the enemy's sea traffic as far as they are able. Beinx in possession of the necessary war means and considering 1t neces- sary for the attainment of their war aims, they can prohibit sea traffic of enemy merch1ntmen on pain of their destruction, provided they have pre- viously announced this to be their in-s tention 60 that every one, whether enemy or neutral, may be enabled to avoid endangering life. Even if doubts should arise regarding the jus tifiableness of such procedure and if the enemy should threaten. reprisals. then this would be an affair for sct- clement between the belligerents only. who, as generally recognized, are en- titled to make, the high seas the scene of military operations and to oppose any interference with their enter prises and to decide for themselves what measures should be taken against enemy sea tariffs. <.
 None Of America's Business.
 .In such cases neutrals have no other legitimate interest and there fore no other legal claim. than that the belligerent inform them in time of prohibitions directed to the enemy. that they can avoid entrusting their lives and their goods to enemy yes sells.
 ..The Austro-Hungarian govern ment can suppose that the Washing ton cabinet will agree with these con- tentions which. according to the Aus tro-Hungarian governments firm con- viction. are unassailable, as otherwise disputing their correctness would doubtless be tantanount to saying which certainly does not correspond to the position Of the United States that neutrals must be free to inter- fere with military operations of bel- ligerents or even directly assume the office of the judging as to the war against enemies.
 
 fragrant misunderstanding if a neu- tral government, only to enable It's subjects to travel on enemy vessels while tlfey as readily and even with far greater security could use neutral vessels, should fall to arms with bel ligerent power which perhaps was fighting for it's existence. not to speak of the most serious abuses for which the road would be left clear If the bel ligerent were to be forced to lower arms berofer every neutral who de- sired to use an enemy vessel Tor his business or pleasure trips.
 Neutra1s Themselves Must Bear Loss.
 Never was there the slightest doubt that neutral subjects themselves have to bear all the loss which they suffer by entering on land territory whore warlike operations are taking place. There obviously h no reason to allow different principles for war on sea, the more so as at the second peace confer ence the wish was expressed that un- til the time when war on sea should have found a settlement by agree ments. the law In force for war on land should be employed as far as it was possible also for war on seq.
 ''In the spirit of what was previous ly said, the regulation warning to be eiven to ship which was to be sunk undergoes exceptions of various kints, under certain circumstances; as for instance, as mentioned by the .Ameri- can government, in cases of flight and resistance. when vessels may be de- stroyed without warning: while In other cases warning before the depar- ture of vessel is necessary.
 ''The Austro- Hungarian govern ment can, therefore, state that 1t. as especially regards protection of neu- trals against endangering their lives. is essentially in accord with the American government. But 1t was not only suffered to put into effect the course Of this war the conception represented by her, but beyond that it also accommodated it's attitude with