The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1917-03-10


'''he also should enjoy the advan,
IaSeS OF freedom of the seas refers
only TO neutral vessels, not TO neutral
persons on board enemy vessels. be-
cause belligerents, as is well known
are entitled to prevent he enemy
sea traiic as far IS they are able. Be-
Ii'S IN possession of the necessary
war means and considering it neces-
9aiy for the attainment of their war
'lnl they can prohibit sea traffic of
enemy merchantmen on pain of de-
S'ructon, provided they have pre-
'IouSly announced this to be their in
tehtlon, so that every one, whether
enemy or neutral, may be enabled to
AVOID cndangering life. Even if doubts
should arise regarding the justidabIc-
ness OF such procedure ana if the
enemy should threaten rcprisals then
thiS Wou'd be an affair for settlement
between the belligcrents only who
us generally recognized, are entitled
10 make the high seas the scene of
military operations and to oppose
any interference with their enter
prise5 and to decide for themselves
what measures should be taken
against enemy sea traffic.
In such cases neutrals have no
other legitimate interest and there
Io"e 10 other legal claim, than that
tho pelilgcrent inform them in time
OF prohibitions directed to the enemy.
thai they can avoid entrusting their
lives and their goods to enemy YES
sells.
The Austro- Hungarian government
can suppose that the WASHINGTON
capinet will agree with these eXpla-
nations, which. according to the
Austro Hungarian governments firm
conviction, are unassailable as other
wise disputing their correctness would
doubtless be tantamount to sayino-
which certainly does not correspond
to the opinion of the United States
that neutrals must be free to in
terfere with military operations OF
pelllgerents or even directly assume
The Office of judging as to the war
means which are to be employed
against enemies.
1T appears that it also would be
q fragrant misunderstanding if neu-
'ral government, only to enable it's
subjects to travel on enemy vessels
while they rs readily and even with
far greater security, could use neu-
trail vessels, should fail to arms with
bclligcrent power which perhaps
was lighting for its existence. NOT to
speak Of the most serious abuses for
which tho road would be left clean
If the bclligorent were to be forced
10 lower arms before every neutral
who desired to use enemy vessels for
his business or pleasure trips Never
was there the slightest doubt thai
neutral subjects themselves have to
Dear al the loss which they suffer
by entering on land territory whcrc
Warlike operations are taking place.
There obviously is no reason to allow
different principles for war on sea.
the more 50 as at Tho second p-ac.
conference the wish was expressed
that until the timo wnc. war on 4ea
should have found a settlement sv
agreements, the law in force for war
on land should be employed, as far
as this was possible, also for war on
sea.
IN the spirit Of what was previous
ly said, the regulation that warming
must be given to q ship which is to
ne sunk undergoes exceptions of va
Wous Kinds under certain circum-
stances; IS for instance, as mention
ed by the American govern nent III
cases Of fight and resistance. when
vessels may be destroyed without
warning; while in other cases warn
ing before the departure Of a vesse,
IS necessary. The AUstro- Hungarian
government can therefore state what
attitude soever the Washington cabi-
net may take in regard to individual
questions raised here, that it, as cspc-
c!aliy regards protection of neutr9.s
against ondangoring their lives, is es~
sentiaily in accord with tho Amer
lean government. Eut it WAS not only
satisfied to put into effect IN the
course of this war tho conception rep
resented by her, but beyond that K
also accommodated its attitude
with painful care to the thesis set N
by the Washington cabinct, and would