The Washington times., 1917-06-16
Reprisals Just, Says Hall Game
Revenge Upon Germany Not the Motive, But
Cruel Necessity Compels Use of
Her Methods.

| in restraining the offender. making
him repent
However Wild the justice 1t aims
after. that is the principle OF reprIsal'
Also its Justification. But, Il Will be
asked, because an enemy sinks a ship
ful OF helpless wounded are we JUST
fled in bombing unfortified towns,
killing innocent women and children
The answer Is hard and bitter in view
of the unmerited suffering IL causes
The excuse depends upon the neces
sity OF curbing brutality. If there Is
no law to punish the inhumanity OF
the enemy when he sinks hospital
ships, IL every human impulse Is sus
pended, II he is a base, crafty coward
1t may be necessary, and, II necessary
1t Is right to restrain him by what
ever means OF punishment lie within
our power to inflict.
That such may involve suffering
of the innocent is a tragic sequel, but
the suffering of the innocent Is In
evitable. In any case, II only opens
the question whether our own limo
cent or the enemy's. Taking this view
l charge the opponents of rsprisal
however unwittingly they advocate
the policy, OF leading to further
drowning of wounded men ard con,
tinued suffering Of women and
children.
Encouraging Crimes.
Confusing their minds on the
question OF responsibility. not seeing
that. where motives diner the acts
are not morally the same, they are
encouraging the criminal to continue
his crimes. They argue against re-
prisals. because We cannot equal the
outrages OF our enemy or compete
in cruelty. There is no need to COM
pete in cruelty. Because a criminal
kills with the cowardly brutality or
a Jack the Ripper the law does not
think II necessary to mutilate the
murderer's body.
at was the moral necessity OF re.
prisal which brought America into
the war. II ever II becomes neces-
sary for her, which God forbid, to
sink merchant ships I think she Is
justified. 1t will never be necessary
for her to deliberately drown sailors.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
and his fellow churchmen are prop
erly anxious that we OF the allies
emerge from the war untarnished by
the foul crimes that stain the en-
eniy's name. But they do not see
that the whole principle OF defensive
warfare must be founded on reprisals.
War Is a system; reprisal Is not
necessarily revenge. To restrain and
deter the enemy. TO make him repent
is the FIRST law OF defense. The en-
envy attacks US with bows and ar
rows. we repel with stronger ones;
he attacks US with rifles, we repel
with better; he attacks with shells.
we repel with bigger; he attacks US
with deadly gas, We repel with yet
DEALER.
'If defensive warfare is right, this
is right. Moral wrong is with those
who begin just war and with them
alone. Such at least is my theory
OF war, and on that theory reprisal
Is expressly justified by the terms OF
the Hague conference. That this
theory of war may be unjustiied I'M
der all conditions Is an open question.
Christians in every age have thought
II contrary to the teachings OF Christ.
Philosophers OF all countries have
counted II among the grossest, baseSt,
inhumanest Of fAllacies. But the
archbishop, in common with the ma