Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1917-03-07

when executing the right OF destroy
ing enemy merchantmen the loss OF
human life should, as far as possible
be avoided, To this principle the
belligerent can only do justice by is
suing warning before exercising the
right, Therein he can choose the
way. which the aforementioned thesis
OF the American government indi-
Gates, which the Commander of the
warship himself gives warning, so
that the crew and passe. gers could
bring themselves into safety in the
last moment. or the government of
belligerent states can, t this is rec
ognized as an inevitable necessity 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 extensive measures
against enemy sea trade. employee a
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
eminent itself recognized. But the
Austro- Hungarian government: be-
lieves that distraction without warm
ing is admissible not only when a
vessel fees or offers resistance. 1t
appears-to mer ton only one exam-
ple-that the character of the vessel
itself also must be taker into consid-
Grafton. Merchantmen or other pm
vate vessels which carry a military
garrison or arms aboard in order to
ommit hostile acts c. any kind, may,
according to valid right, be destroyed
without hesitation.
The Austro-Hungarian govern
ment need not cali attention to the
fact that the belligerent is released
of all consideration for human life if
his opponent sinks enemy merchant
men without previous warning as hap
pened with the vessels Elect Ger.
NAM Dubrovnik (Austrian) Zagreb
(Austrian) etc, which already has
been repeatedly censured; and in this
respect the Austro-Hungarian govern
ment never returned like for like,
notwithstanding its uncontested right.
In the course of the entire war Aus
tro-Hungarian war vessels have not
sunk one enemy merchantmen with
out previous, if only general warning.
THE repeatedly mentioned thesis
of the United States government also
allows various interpretations inso-
far, namely. as it is doubtful whether
as is asserted from various sides, only
armed resistance justihes the destruc-
ton of vessel with persons aboard,
or resistance of another kind; as is
shown if the crew Intentionally
neglects to take the passengers into
boats-the Ancona case-or if the
passengers themselves refuse to enter
boats, According to the opinion of
the Austro-Hungarian government,
the destruction OF a warned vessel
without rescuing the persons aboard
is admissible i'll cases of the latter
kind, because, otherwise. it would be
left to the individual passenger to
nullify the right of belligerents to
sink vessels.
Rescue Left to Chance.
Moreover, it may be pointed out
also that there is no unanimity as. re-
CARDS i'll what cases the sinking of
neutral merchantmen at all is admis-
sible. The obligation to issue a warn
ing Immediately before sinking YES
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,
it is under the circumstances calcu-
lated to injure the justified interests
of belligerents. In the first place, it
must not be overlooked that the res
cue of persons is almost always left
to mere chance, as the only choice re-
naming is to take them aboard war
vessels which are exposed to any
enemy influence, or to expose them in
small boats to the dangers of the ele-
ments; so that it therefore CORE
spends much better to the principles
Of humanity to prevent persons by
timely warning from using endan-
gered vessels.
Furthermore, NOTWITHSTANDING care