New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-03-10
Officials Not Planning to
Interfere with Sailing of
Liner Rochambeau
Ruling Misconstrued
Only Duty to Prevent Use of
Harbors as Bases for
War Vessels

Washington, March 9.-lt can be
stated with the utmost positiyeness
that the French Line steamer Rocham-
beau and all other Allied passenger
ships will be permitted TO depart from
American ports with guns fore and aft,
or with any kind OF armament for
defence against submarines. no matter
what the size. type or position.
The question Of the Rochambeau's
status has not yet been submitted to
the State Department by the Treasury
officials at the Port of New York. but
in discussing the matter to-day ON
Gals Of the department left no doubt
as 70 their attitude.
Furthermore. to avoid any possible
Misunderstanding either in this coun-
try or Germany. the State Department
desires to have the following facts
called to the attention of the public;
That permitting the Rochambeau to
sail. armed forward as well as aft,
marks no departure from previous
practice. There is nothing in the de-
partments previous pronouncements on
the subject which forbids the armlng
of merchantmen in this fashion. A
statement issued for the guidance OF
customs officers early in the war has
been misconstrued TO mean that arma-
ment carried forward is essentially
offensive. What the department act
ually said was that if no guns were
carried forward the fact would be taken
AS prima facie evidence or purely de-
fensive intention.
Evidences of Defensive Intent
The same statement said that similar
evidences of defensive intent were the
fact that the vessel carried passengers,
that IL carried cargo and that IL
piled regular route between com
mercial ports.
Any of these evidences alone will be
taken as prima facie evidence oil peace
full intent.
On March %. 1916, to clear the whole
question up for the guidance OF the
American people and foreign govern
ments. the State Department issued a
manifesto defining the law as tins gov
eminent would apply It,
The manifesto said that a neutral
government was entitled to adopt sucn
rules as it pleased governing the use
of its harbors by armed merchantmen
of foreign flag, and might even pro-
hibit il altogether. without preJudiclng
or limiting the right OF such vessels
20 be treated as merchant ships by
enemy war vessels.
II is the duty of a neutral govern
ment to prevent the use OF It's harbors
As war bases. Neutrals must therefore
be guided BIZ presumption in dealing
with armed merchant ships. They may
throw the burden of proof onto the
merchantmen to show that she IS not
armed for offensive warfare.
Burden of Proof on Warship
Or the high seas, however, bel
Ugerent war vessel, surface or sub
marine. meeting an armed merchant
man. cannot be guided by presumption,
but only by direct evidence. The bur
den of proof is always on the war yes
sci. 4 merchantmen, no matter how
armed, cannot be treated as warshlp,
until it has actually used its arma-
ment extensively.
If the merchantmen fires on the sub
marine. or fees, or otherwise resists
capture, the submarine is entitled 10
treat it without consideration during
such resistance. When the resistance
stops. signifying surrender. the vessel
instantly resumes its peaceful char
acter, and due consideration must be
given the crew and passengers.
The merchantmen may even fire be-
fore she is fired on without acting
Extensively, in the view of the State
Department. The manifesto of March
%. 1916. said:
"A merchantmen entitled to exercise
the right of self-protection may do so
when certain of attack by an enemy
warship, otherwise the exercise of the
right would be so restricted as TO
render it Intellectual. There is a diff
ference. however, between the exercise
of the right of self-protection and the
act of cruising the seas in an armed
vessel for the purpose of attacking
enemy naval vessels"