New Britain herald., 1917-03-06
AUSTRIA'S ANSWER.
 ON U-BOAT WAR
(Continued from First Paye:)

f q e.l sssf sfs of Humanity to, avoid misunderstand- fnngs between the monarchy and the American union.
 Above all. the Austro-Hungarian government desires to emphasize that 1t also is It's opinion that the thesis set up by the American government, which also Is represented in various learned records. that enemy mer- chantmen. apart from cases of at- tempted flight and resistance must not be destroyed without precaution being taken for the safety of the per- sons aboard. forms. 50 to say, the kernel of the whole subject. Regard ed from g. higher standpoint, that thesis can of course be ranked in a further suggestive connection. and from that view its doman of applica- tiop can be marked out more exact- ly.
 How Neutrals Oan Be Warned.
 From the laws of humanity which tho Austro- o-Hungarian government and the Washington cabinet taks. the same manner in judging the lipes, the more 9sneral principle can be de- rived that when executing the rieht Of destroying enemy merchantmen the lOss of human life should as far possible be avoided. To this prin- ciple the belligerents can only do jus ttce by issuing warning before exer- ching the right. Thereon he can chose the way which the aforemen- tioned thesis of tho American govern 'ment indicates according to which the commander of the war vessel gives warning % that the crew and passensers could bring themselves into safety h the last moment or the government of belngereut states can, If this II recognised as an inevitable necessity of war. tssue warning Of full efIect also before the departure of the vessel which Is to Do sunk: or finally. 1t can. if 1t establishes meas ures against enemy sea trade, eln- ploy general warning for all enemy vessels in question.
 Has Given Warning in Every Case. 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 ro-Hungarian government be- 1 lieves that destruction without warn- ing h admissable not only svhen a ves- sel fiees or offers resistance. It ap- pears to mention only one example- that the character of the vessel itself also must be taken into consideration Merchantmen or other private vessels which carry 8 military garrison or arms aboard in order to commit hos tile acts of any kind. may, according to valid right Joe destroyed without hesitation.
 I The Acknowledgements govern ment need not call attention to the fact that the belligerent Is released of all consideration for human life if his opponent sinks enemy merchantmen without previous warning. as hap- pened with the vesses Electra Ger
 maf) du Brovnik (Austrian) Sea- greb (Austrian) etc., which already
 has been repeatedly censored.
 And In this respect the Austro- Hungarian government never returned
 like for like. notwithstanding its un.
 contested right. In the course of the
 entire war Austro- Hungarian war yes.
 seis have not sunk one enemy mer.
 chantman without previous. if only general warning.
 The repeatedly mentioned thesis of the United States also allows va,
 rious interpretations. insofar namely
 As 1t is doubtful whether, as 1t is as.
 serted from various sides. only armed resistance justifies the destruction oi . vessel with persons aboard, or re.
 sistance of another kind, as is showr if the crew intentionally neglects te k fS1f~ H>< Ancona case-or if the passenger. themselves refuse to enter boats. Ac'
 cording to the opinion of the Austro' Hungarian government, the destruc. ton of a warned vessel without res cuing the persons aboard Is admis knx&eo in eeseo of the latter kind. be
 fIIIlI 1SR11F oS1ll De left to thu