The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-03-07

garinn governments arm conviction.
are unassaiiable: as otherwise disput-
ing their correctness would doubtless
be tantamount to saying--which GER
tainly does not correspond to the opin-
ion of the United States--that neu-
trails must be free to interfere with
military operations of beiligerents or
even directly assume the office of
judging MS to the war means which
are to be employed against enemies.
1T appears that II also would be a
fragrant Misunderstanding II a neutral
government only to enable it's sub
jects to travel on enemy vessels while
they readily and even with far greater
securityS could use neutral vessels
should fall to arms with a bei1igerent
power which perhaps was fighting for
it's existence. not to speak OF the most
serious abuses for which the most
would he left clear II the beiligerent
were to be forced TO lower arms be-
fore every neutral who desired to use
enemy vessels for his business or pleas
urc trims. Never was there the slight
est doubt that neutral subjects hem
selves have TO bear all the loas which
they suffer by entering on land terri
tory where warltke operations are taxi
ling place. There obviously is no ress-
son to allow different principles for
war on sea the more so as at the
second peace conference the wish was
expressed that untn the time when war
on sea should have found settlement
by agreements the law in force for
war on land should he employed as
far As this was possible. also for war
on sea
"In tho spirit of what was previous
ly said. the regulation that warning
must be given to a ship which Is
he sunk undergoes exceptions of var
lousa kinds under certain Clrcum-
stances; as for instance, as mentioned
by the American government IN cases
OF flight and resistance, when vessels
may be destroyed without warn ng'
while in other cases warning before
the departure OF vessel is necessary
The Austro- Hungarian government can
therefore state what attitude soeVer
the Washington cabinet may take In
regard to Individual questions raised
here, that IL, as especially regards
protection of neutrals against endan&
ering their lives. LIS essentially In &C
cord with the American government
But IT was not only satisfied to put
into effect in the course Of this war
the conception represented by her but
beyond that 1t also accommodated It's
attitude with painful care to the thesis
set up by the Washington cabinet and
would feel inclined to support II in It's
en1eavor to secure American citizens
against dangers at sea, which sndeav-
or supports by the warmest phiian-
thropy and by instructing and warning
those entrusted with II.
: Insists Aiming of Merchantmen Ia
Illegal.
AS regards circular note i0,6o2 OF
last year regarding the treatment OF
armed enemy merchantmen. the Aus
tro-Hungarian government. II is true.
has to state that as already mentioned
previously, 1t Is of the opinion that
the armine Of merchantmen. even II
solely for defense asaist the exercise
OF the right of capture. Is not estab-
lished by modern international law
A war vessel is Obliged to come into
contact with enemy merchantmen IN a
peaceful manner, 1t has TO waylay
the vessel by certain signals, to enter
into communication with the captain.
to examine the ships papers, draw up
a protocol and If necessary. take IN
inventory. etc. Fulfllment OF these
duties prssupposes naturally that the
war vessel has fun certainty that the
merchantmen. on its part. also will act
tainty does not exist II the merchant
d man possesses armament which is suf-
[ fcicnt to fEht the war vessel 1t can
! hardly be expected to discharge Its
| duties under the tnuzzle OF guns, what
| ever their purpose may be; without
I mentioning the fact that that mer'
/ chantmen of the entente powers. de-
spite all assurances TO the contrary
I AREAS this has been proved--provid-
! cd with arms for an aggressive pur-
nose and also use them for this pur-
pose
! 1T would also be a miS'uterpretat ton
: of the duties of humanity to demand
/ that crews Of war vessels exrose them
selves without defense TO arms OF the
/ enemy. No state could value Its du-
! lies OF humanity toward the legal de-
Z g nders OF the fathe~iand less than Its
/ duties towards subjects OF foreign
I ,owers The Austro- Tnuearian gov
/ arnment therefore could have stated
! from conviction that its promise made
, TO the WASHINGTON cabinet did not ex.
! tend from the very beginning, &c
| armed merchantmen. because they. &C
: cording to the valid principle ana right
hitch restrict hosti'ities to organized
/ forces are to he regarded as pirate yes
! sells, which may be destroyed"