El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1917-03-06
MUST TRAVEL on
NEUTRAL SHIPS
Austria Declares Neutrals
on Enemy Vessels Must
Take Own Risks.

= C-AAO - " IL AN@O~ASs
its domain Of application can be
marked out more exactly.
General Warning sufficient
From the laws OF humanity the gen
eral principals can be derived that.
when executing the right OF destroy 8
enemy merchantmen, the loss Of human
life should as far as possible be avoided
To this principle. the beiiigerentS can
only do justice by issuing warning be-
fore exercising their right Therein ne
can choose the way which the afore-
mentioned thesis of the american gov
eminent indicates, according TO which
the commander Of the war vessel him
self gives warning so that the crew
and passengers could bring themselves
into safety in the last moment or the
government OF belligerent states can.
IL this is recognized as an inevitable
necessity of war, issue warning Of full
effect also before the departure Of the
vessel which Is 10 be sunk, or finally
IL can, If II establishes extensive meas
ures against enemy sea trade, employ
a general warning for all enemy yes
sells in question
Exceptions Recognized.
That the principle, according to
which care must be taken for the
safety OF the persons aboard, under
goes exceptions, the American govern
ment itself recognizes. But the Aus
Hungarian government believes
that destruction without warning is
admissible not only when a vessel
fees or offers resistance. II appears
to mention only one exampie-that
the character of the vessel itself also
must be taken into consideration. Mer
chantmen or other private vessels
which carry military garrison or
arms aboard in order TO commit hostile
acts of any kind, may, according to
valid right, be destroyed without hesi-
tation.
TeutOn Ships Sunk; No Warming.
The Austro-HungariaR government
need not call attention TO the fact that
the 5elligerent is released of all con-
sideratiOn for human life If his oppo-
nent sinks enemy merchantmen with
out previous warning. as happened
with the vessels Electra fGerman). Du-
brovnik (Austrian). Zagreb (Austrian).
etc, which already has been repeat
edly censured; and in this respect the
Austro- government never
returned like for Ike, Notwithstanding
its contested right In the course
OF the entire war Austro-Hungarian
war vessels have not sunk one enemy
merchantmen without previous, If only
general warning
What JustifIes Destruction.
The repeatedly mentioned thesis OF
the United States government also
allows various interpretations. insofar,
namely, as IL is doubtful whether as is
asserted from various sides. only armed
resistance justifies the destruction of
4 NtSStl Win persons ABOARD, OF re-
sistance OF another kind; as is shown
II the crew Intentionally negiects to
take tho passengers into boats-ths
Ancona case-or II the passengers
themselves refuse 10 enter boats.
Warning Beforehand Better.
Moreover. il may be pointed out
also that there is no unanimity as re-
CARDS in what cases the sinking OF
neutral merchantmen at all is admis-
sible- The obligation to issue warn
ing Immediately before sinking vessels
leads, according 10 the opinion Of the
government, on the
one hand to harshness which could be
avoided: on the other hand 1t is, IN
der the circumstances. calculated to I
injure the justified interests of bellig-
srents. In the first place, it must not !
be overlooked that the rescue of per- J
sons is almost always left to mere !
chance as the only choice remaining Is
10 take them aboard war vessels, which /
are exposed to any enemy influence. I
Dr. TO expose them in small boats 10 =
the dangers of the clements so that IL /
therefore corresponds much better 10 !
the principles Of humanity to prevent Z
persons by timely warnings from using /,
vessels
Furthermore. Notwithstanding care I
'ul examination of all legal questions 4
-eferring thereto. the Austro-Hunga-
ian government could not come TO the
conviction that subjects of neutral I
states are entitled to travel unmolest-
d on enemy vessels
Freedom for Neutral Vessels.
The principle that neutrals IN war
ime also should enjoy the advantages
Y freedom of the seas refers only 10
leutral vessels. not to neutral persons I
N board enemy vessels. because bel
igerents as Is we'll known, are en-
tiled TO prevent the enemy sea tra1-
ic as far as they are able. Being IN /
possession Of the necessary wa means /
nd considering il necessary for the
.ttainment of their war aims they can
,rohibit sea traffic of enemy mer-
hantmen on pain Of their destruction.
provided they have previously an
lOunced this to be their intention. 50
hat every one, whether enemy or neu-
raj, may be enabled TO avoid endan-
,ering life.
Question for BeIIigereats.
Even II doubts should arise regard
ng the justifIableness OF such proceed
ire. and If the enemy should threaten |
eprisals, then this would be an affair !
or settlement between the belligerents
My, who, as generally recognized, |
re entitled 10 make the high seas the J
Gene Of military operations and TO-
ppose any interference with their en- |
erprises and TO decide for themselves 1
that measures should be taken against /
nemy sea traffic
Can Only Expect General Warning.
In such cases neUTals have no
ther legitimate interest and therefore !
10 other legal claim. than that the
'elligerents inform them in time Of
directed to the enemy that I
hey can avoid entrusting their lives
nd their goods to enemy vessels.
Expects L. :. 10 Agree
THE Austro- Hungarian government |
an suppose that the Washington cab
net will agree with these eXplana- !
ions which. according to the AustrO- |
hungarian governments conviction. are
nassailabIe: as otherwise, disputing !
heir correctness would doubtless be
10 saying-which certainly I
oes not correspond to the opinion OF
ne United States-that neutrals must !
@>I