The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-06
AUSTRIAN
POSITION
ISSTATED
Freedom Of Seas Does Not
Extend to "Neutrals on
Board Enemy Vessels"
|SO SAYS new MEMORANDUM
Also Contends That Bellig-
erents May Decide Upon
Measures at Sea
(By Associated Prasa.l }

L 10Y ASbOCldIC0 ETG6Bs1
| London, March 6.-The American
minister at Vienna has been handel
the reply Of the Austrian government
to the American note inquiring as Il
the position OF the Austrian govern
ment in regard to unrestricted sub.
marine warfare. according to a Wen.
ma dispatch to Reuters by way oi
Amsterdam.
The reply declares that neutrals are
responsible for losses they suffer BY
entering territory where warlike oper.
| ations are taking place.
The American note. which was dis
patched to Vienna on Feb. is. asked
specifically whether the Austrian as.
surances given following the sinking
Of the Ancona and the Persia had beer
nullified. The reply says that what
ever attitude the Washington cabinet
may take as to individual questions
raised here" the Austrian government
Is essentially in accord with the
American government in regard to
the protection Of neutrals against en-
dangering their lives" The memoran-
dunn then maintains that neutral
subjects have to bear themselves all
losses they suffer by entering terri
tory where warlike operations are
taking place"
After a lengthy discussion of the
British blockade, which 1t declares is
illegal. the memorandum continues: !:
enjoy in war times the advantages of
the freedom of the seas refers only to
neutral vessels and not to neutral
persons aboard enemy vessels"
The reply further contends that bel
ligerentgt are entitled to- decide for
themse Nes what measures ahould be
taken against an enemy in sea traffic
and concludes:
an such cases neutrals have no
other legitimate interest and there
fore no other legal claims than that a
beIligerent infrom them in time Of a
prohibition directed to any enemy so
that they can avoid entrusting their
lives and their goods to enemy ves-
sells.
The Austrian memorandum, refer
ring to the note on the Ancona case,
says that 1t strictly adheres to the
assurance already given"
At the same time Austria calls at
tention to the fact that at the time
Of the Ancona incident it stated that
1t reserved the right to bring up
later for discussion difficult interna-
tional questions which arise in con-
nection with submarine warfare"
The memorandum then adds:
eff the Austro- Hungarian govern
ment now refers to this reservation
and briefly discusses the question of
the sinking Of enemy vessels to which
that note refers, 1t is guided by a de-
sire to show the American govern
ment that now, as heretofore, 1t
strictly adheres to the assurance
given and endeavors, by clearing up
that important question, because 1t
touches the laws of humanity, to
avoid misunderstanding between the
monarchy and the American union"
Text Of Reply.
The text Of the Austrian reply to
the United States is quoted in later
Vienna dispatch to Reuters which
after reciting the blockade measures
Of the entente, in part is as follows:
For more than two years, the CEN
trail powers hesitated. Only then and
after long and careful consideration
did they begin to return like for like
and attacked the enemy on the sea.
The proclamations which they issued
last January are apparently directed
only against the rights Of neutrals, In
reality they serve towards the restora-
tion of these rights. which their
enemies have incessantly violated and
which, il they were victors. they would
destroy forever.
GAS regards the circular note Of last
year regarding the treatment of armed
enemy merchantmen the Austro- Hun
garlan government, it is true, has to
state, that, as already mentioned
previously. it is of the opinion that
the arming of merchantmen even sole
ly for defense against the exercise of
the right of capture, is not established
by modern international law. A war
vessel is obliged to come into contact
with enemy merchantmen in a peace
full manner. F'ulf1llment of this duty
presupposes naturally that the war
vessel has full certainty that the mer-
chairman, on its part. also will act
peacefully. Without doubt. such cer-
tainty does not exist If the merchant
man possesses armament which Is
SUFFICIENT to fight the war vessel.
"The Austro-H Hungarian govern
ment. therefore. could have stated
from conviction that it's promise made
to the Washington cabinet. did not ex-
tend from the very beginning, to
armed merchantmen because they ac-
cording to the valid principle and
right restricts hostilities to organized
vessels which may be destroyed"
The reply OF the Austrian govern
ment to the second American note I'm
regard to the sinking OF the Aucona
contained the following paragraph:
"The Austro Hungarian govern
ment can positively concur in the
principle that enemy private vessels,
so far as they do not fee or offer
shall not be destroyed be-
fore the persons aboard afs secured. "
T.EAnER DIES