Evening star., 1917-03-06

I
| it now, as heretofore, strictly adheres
to the assurance already given and
| endeavors by clearing up that impor
tant question arising from submarine
| warfare because 1t touched the laws
| of humanity to avoid misunderstand-
| ings between the monarchy and the
| American Union.
Three Methods Of Warning.
| above all the Austro- Hungarian
government desires to emphasize that
1t is also its opinion that the thesis set
up by the American government. which
also is represented in various learned
records. that enemy merchantmen,
apart from cases of attempted flight
and resistance, must not be destroyed
| without precautions being taken for
the safety of the persons aboard. forms.
so to say. the kernel of the whole sub
| 1ect Regarded from a higher stand
point, this thesis can of course be
ranked in further suggestive connec-
| ton, and from that view it's domain OF
appi1catlon can be marked out more
| exactly.
From the laws Of humanity which
the Austro- Hungarian government and
the Washington cabinet take in the
same manner as judging the lines the
more general principle can be derived
that when executing the right of de-
lstroying enemy merchantmen the loss
or human life should as far as possible
De avoided. To this principle the bel
hgerent can only do justice by issuing
| warning before exercising the right.
| Ihere1n he can choose the way which
the aforementioned thesis of the Ameri-
can 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 belligerent 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. it can.
If it establishes extensive measures
against enemy sea trade, employ a gen.
eral warning for all enemy vessels in
question.
Exceptions to Principle.
THAT the principle, according to
| which care must be taken for the
safety of the persons aboard, undergoes
exceptions. the American government
itself recognized. But the Austro-
Hungarian government believes that
destruction. without warning, is adj
missable- not only when a vessel fees
or offers resistance. 1t appears-to
mention only one example-that the
character of the vessel itself also must
De taken INTO COnSiQeTatlOH. MeT-
chantmen or other private vessels
which carry a military garrison or
arms aboard in order to commit hostile
acts of any kind. may. according to
valid rights. be destroyed without hesi-
| tation.
THE Austro-Hungarian government
need not call attention to the fact that
the belligerent is released of all con-
sideration for human life if his oppon-
ent sinks enemy merchantmen without
previous warning. as happened with
the vessels Electra Germany. Dubrov-
mix (Austrian), Zagreb (Austrian), etc.
which already has been repeatedly CEN
sured. and in this respect the Austro-
Hungarian government never returned
like for like. Notwithstanding it's un-
contested right. In the course of the
entire war Austro- Hungarian war ves-
| sells have not sunk one enemy mer-
chantman without previous, if only
| general, warning.
Not Within the Rule.
"The repeatedly mentioned thesis of
the United States government also al
lows various interpretations. in so far.
namely, as it is doubtful whether, as is
asserted from various sides. only armed
resistance justifies the destruction of
sistance of another kind; as is shown
if the crew intentionally neglects to
take the passengers into boats-the
Ancona case--or if the passengers
cording to the opinion of the Austro-
Hungarian government, the destruc-
ton of a warned vessel without res
cuing the persons aboard is admissa bl 9
4 otherwise it would be left to the indi-
Il vidual passenger to nullify the right
of belligerents to sink vessels.
| Moreover. it may be pointed out also
that there is no unanimity as regards
in what cases the sinking of neutral
merchantmen at all is admissible. The
obligation to issue warning imme-
diately before sinking vessels leads.
according to the opinion of the Austro-
| Hungarian government. on the one
hand to harshness which could be
avoided: on the other hand it is under
circumstances calculated to injure the
justified interests Of belllgerents. In
the first place it must not be over
looked that the rescue of persons is
almost always left to mere chance, as
the only choice remaining is to take
them aboard war vessels which are
exposed to any enemy influence. or to
expose them in small boats to the dan
gers of the elements. SO that it there
fore corresponds much better to the
principles of humanity to prevent per-
sons by timely warning from using en-
dangered vessels.
Furthermore. notwithstanding care
full examination of all legal questions
| referred thereto, tne AustTo-F1uHs ar
ian government could not come to the
conviction that subjects of neutral
! states are entitled to travel unmolested
on enemy vessels.
Rights of Neutral Vessels.
The principle that neutrals in war
time also should enjoy the advantages
of freedom of the seas refers only to
neutral vessels, not to neutral persons
on board enemy vessels, because bel
ligerents. as is well known, are entitled
to prevent the enemy's sea traffic as far
as they are able. Being in possession
of the necessary war means and con-
sidering it necessary for the attainment
OF their war aims, they can prohibit sea
traffic of enemy merchantmen on pain
Of their destruction, provided they have
previously announced this to be their
intention, so that every one, whether
enemy or neutral, may be enabled to
avoid endangering life. Even If doubts
should arise regarding the justifiable-
ness of such procedure and If the en-
emy should threaten reprisals. then this