The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-03-06
The Sn1ifh-MurTaYCO.

them aboard war vessels which are exposed to any enemy influence, or to expose them in small boats to the dangers of the elements; so that it, therefore. corresponds much better to the principles of humanity to prevent persons, by timely warning, from using endangered vessels.
 Furthermore, notwtthstanding care full examination of all legal questions referring thereto, the Austro- -Hunga- rian government could not come to. the conviction that subjects of neutral states are entitled to travel unmolest- ed on enemy vessels.
 ''The principle that neutrals in wa time also should enjoy the advantages of freedom of the seas only to neu- tra1 vessels, not to neutral persons on board enemy vessels. because belliger- ients as is well 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 con- sidering it necessary for the attain ment of their war aims, they can pro- hibit sea traffic of enemy merchant men on pain of their destruction, pro- vided they have previously announced this to be their intention, so that every one, whether enemy or neutral, may be enabled to avoid endangering life. Even if doubts should arise regarding the justifableness of such procedure and if the enemy should threaten re- prisals, then this would be an affair for settlement between the belliger- ents only, who, as generally 'recog- nize, are entitled to make the high seas the scene of military operations and to oppose any interference with their enterprises and to decide for themselves 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, than that the belligerent information in time of prohibitions directed toward the enemy that they can avoid trusting their lives and their goods to enemy vessels.
 ''The Austro- ro-Hungarian government can suppose that the Washington cab- inet will agree with these explana- tions, which, according to the Austro- Hungarian governments firm convic- ton, are unassailable, as otherwise, disputing their correctness would
  which certainly does not correspond to the opinion 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 judging as to the war means which are to be employed against ene- mics.
 'It appears that it also would be a fragrant misunderstanding if a neu- tra1 government ,only to enable it's 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 belligerent 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 before every neutral who desired to use an enemy vessel for his busi- ness or pleasure trips.
 Never was there the slightest doubt that neutral subjects themselves have to bear all the losses which they suf- fer by entering on land territory where warlike operations are takins place. There obviously is no reason to allow different principles for war on sea, the more so as at the second peace conference the wish was ex- pressed that, until the time when war on sea should have found a settlement by agreements, the law in force for war on land, sh hould be employed, as far as this was possible, also for war on sea
 ''In the spirit of what was previous ly said, the regulation that warning must be given to a ship which is to be sunk undergoes exceptions Of vari- ous kinds, under certain circum. stances, as, for instance, as mentioned by the American government, in cases of flight and resistance, when vessels