Arizona republican., 1921-12-30

| The naval committee of the Wash | ington conference debated the Root resolutions all day before arriving at 1 It's decision to turn article one of
 resolutions over to a committee with | instructions to draft its language
 without notifications of the prin- ciples stated in the original pro- posal.
 l Secretary Hughes invited the dis cussion immediately upon the con-
 yening of the naval committee and | MT. Balfour for the British group 1 declared that providing article one l did in fact really embody the ex | isting rules of war" he personally believed it desirable that these should be reaffirmed in their rela- tion to submarine warfare"
 Reiterating that he spoke only for himself, MT Balfour said he believed a formal and authoritative state | ment that submarines had no license to break the rules by which other
 ships of war were bound could do
 nothing but good"
 Admiral De Bon of thes French
 group, said he shared wholly MT.
 Balfour's views and that the French
 delegation gave ''in principle our
 general adhesion" to the statement
 that submarines should of necessity
 be bound by the rules of interna- tional law"
 But as this law is of very spe- ciaI nature" Admiral De Bon said.
 'it seems to us that the most prac- tical solution would be to refer the
 consideration of the text submitted
 by Mir Root to a conmitte of jur-
 ists which would advise us as to it's
 opinion in regard to the wording to
 be adopted"
 Senator Schanzer said the Italian
 delegation had already given ''our
 full adhesion to the aim to which
 Mir. Roots proposal tends" but add
 ed the Italians thought formulation of the rules of war for submarines should be examined by a committed , of jurists. The text of the Root res
 olutions, he said, had been cabled te Rome.
 , Senator Schanzer pointed out tha1 , article one and article two of tEt
 Root proposals appeared to conflict inasmuch as article one admitted with certain reservations of he de : l struction of merchant craft by sub s marines while article two ''definitel! g prohibits" use of submarines for de g struction of merchant ships. |, Define Merchant Craft l sHOulu WISH tutIclOIcf bS ediu e ito know in what way the secon'
 resolution tallies with the first.' . He also suggested that "a clea - definition of merchant craft" migh | throw light on the question involved l. He invited an explanation from MI e Root.
 o Sir Robert Borden, for Canads e said he understood MT Root to hay : set forth existing rules which ha c been or should have been, the gen
 eral practice in the past to gover - the action of nations in time of war a and had no doubt these rules wer . correctly stated and should hay o been followed by belligerent vesse ' during the recent war. although :, fact they had been "wantonly vic ~ lated"
 V But MT Roots proposal went muc . further, he added, and the signator - powers were asked to pledge then , selves to recognize the practic impossibility of using submarines 1; Iy commerce destroyers," without vit ,s lating the accepted laws of war sr p~ to declare their assent to prohibitic = of the use of submarines again ,e merchant craft and invite adheren' ,s of other powers to this declaratio r The speaker said he thought le NAsC dild Ail0CCu GSSclllldl lllG II
 terests of humanity that this pr
 posal should be accepted" but tn ,e the exact wording might be consi III cred by an expert body. ''ppvid ly this should not prevent action by th " conference" Sir Robert also d ir clared himself in favor of MT. Roo nt | third suggested declaration, holdil IT. submarine commanders personal n. responsible and subject to penal D. for acts of piracy for any violatit in of the rules, whether by order of the st | government or not.
 l. Jap Delegates Agree
 The Japanese delegation was in a ed cord with the substance of artic n, one" of the Root resolution, N xe Hanihara said, but he added he b he lieved the question should be referr m to experts for drafting
 e. Replying to Senator Schanzer's i re quiry MT. Root said it was obvio e. article two could not be consiste al with article one. since it proposed SC change in international law. es Article one" he said, lis a stat y- ment of existing law: article two r. adopted. would constitute a chan
 from existing law and therefore 1t ed impossible to say it is not inco D. sistent.''
 es As to Senator Schanzers sugge mt tion that merchant ships be defin ue in the proposed five power declar s- tion, Mir. Root said:
 he Nothing is more clearly or bett cir understood than the subject we q a merchant ships The merchant sh li- its treatment. it's rights, its prote ey tion and its immunities are at { an base of the law of nations" as He had hoped yesterday. Mir. R,
 continued that the delegations wol ch seek expert legal opinion on, his pl to- posals over night and that we wol on have had here today the results as that inquiry"
 It. T would like to say" he continu re- that I am entitled to know whetl CT, any delegation questions this sta pc ment of existing law. Does this, ee. does it not state the law of natiC
 as it exists If it does, you are
 in favor of it. What, then, hind
 its adoption?'
 Mir. Root read again the brief pr
 ciples of his article one and agi eS asked if there was any question as
 the correctness.
 . MT. Malkin," he said, turning ,o+ one of the British legal advisers. .- there any doubt about that?" Mir. Malkin replied, that in pr
 ciple there was no doubt at all' 'ihs % MT. Root then took up his reso uu tion proposing strict application law the rules he had set forth for S, ant marines as well as other naval era to Head Public Opinion MT 'The public opinion of the VIC MT says" he said, that the submar the is not under any circumstances lar emept from the rules above stat