The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1917-03-06
AUSTRIA uPHOLDS|
 U-b0AT WARFARE
(Continued from Page One)


 that it will especially be understood by the great people of the United States, whose most illustrious repre- sentative has during the war defend ed with flaming words the freedom of the seas as the highway of all na- tions.
 If the people and government of the United States keep in mind that the blockade proclaimed by Great Britain is not only meant to wear down the Central Powers by starva- ton, but aims at subjecting the seas to her rule, without establishing in this manner her tyranny over all na- tlons, while on the other hand the blockade of England and her allies only serves to make these powers in- cline toward peace with honor and a guarantee to all nations of the free oo1n or sea traffic and sea commerce ana thereby secured existence. then the question which of the two parties mas the right on it's side is already de- cioeo. Thought the Central Powers nave no desire in this war to beg for allies, they yet believe that they vii, De entitled to look to neutrals to an- preclate their efforts to revise in the interest of all the principals of inter- national law and equal rights of na- tions.
 Tn replying now to the question put III the American note of Feb. IS the Austro-Hungarian government firstly remarks that in the exchange of notes referring to the cases of the Ancona and the Persia it restricted itself to defining it's attitude to concrete oues- tlons which individually arose. with out laying down it's fundamental leg al conception. But in it's note of Oct IS, 1915, referring to the Ancona case IL reserved to itself the right to bring up TOT discussion at a later date diff cult international questions which arise in connection with submarine warfare. If it now refers to this res ervation and now briefly discusses the question of sinking enemy vessels. to Wnlch that note refers, it is guided by Une desire to show the American gov ernment that it now, as heretofore. strictly adheres to the assurance al- ready given and endeavors by clearing up that important question arising from submarine warfare, because it touched the laws of humanity to avoid misunderstanding between the mon- archy and the American union.
 Above all, the Austro-Hungaria government desires to emphasize shat 1t is also its opinion that the thesis set up up the American government, Which also is reported in various learned records, ,tha. enemy merchant men. apart from cases of attempted flight and resistance, may not be de- stroyed without precautions being talk en for the safety of the persons aboard forms, so to say, the kernel of the whole subject. Regarded from a higher standpoint, this thesis can of course be ranked in a further sugges- tive connection, and from that view i.s domain of application can be marked out more exactly.
 From the laws of humanity which the Austro- Hungarian governr nt and the Washington cabinet take in the same manner as Judging the lines, the more general principle can be de- rived that when executing the right of destroying enemy merchantmen the loss of human life should as far as possible be avoided. To this princ1- pie the belligerent can only do justice by issuing warning before exercising the right. Then on he can choose the way which the aforementioned thesis of the American government indicates, according to which the commander of the war vessel himself gives warning so that the crew and passengers could bring themselves into safety in the last moment or the government of bel ligerent states can, if this is recognized 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, 1t can, if it estab- fishes extensixe measures against en- eny sea trade, employ a general warn ing 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 ernment itself recognized But the government be- lieves that destruction without warn ing is admissible not only when a ves- sel fees or offers resistance. It ap- pears-to mention only one example that, the character of the vessel it. self also must be taken into considera- tion. Merchantmen or other private vessels which carry military garrison or arms aboard in order to commit hostile acts of any kind may, accord ing to valid right, be destroyed with out hesitation.
 "The Austro- Hungarian govern ment need not call attention to the fact that the belligerent is released of all consideration for human life if his opponents sink enemy mer- chantmen without previous warning, ns happened with the vessels Electra (German), DuBrovnik (Austrian), Zagreb (Austrian), etc, which al- ready has been repeatedly censored. And in this respect the Austro-Hun- like for like, notwithstanding it's un- contested right, In the course of the entire war Austro-Hungarian war vessels have not sunk on an enemy without previous if only general warning.
 The repeatedly nentioner1 thesis of the United States government also al- lows various Interpretations, insofar, as 1t is doubtful whether, as 1t is asserted from various sides, only armed resistance justi1es the destruc- ton of a 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 pas se11gers themselves refl1sa to entan.