Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1921-12-30
ROOT DEMANDS
lcontinued from Page one)

subcommittee, headed by Root, for
final drafting Secretary Hughes said
he hoped it would mot be overlaid
with lawyers niceties" when it re-
emerged. No one, lie sale, couIu
write anything which lawyers could
not improve, but when it came TO
the expression OF vague fears, to
which lawyers so like to give express
sion," he added, he hoped that such
verbal criticisms would receive scant
attention"
The naval committee of the Wash
ington conference debated the Root
resolution all day before arriving al
it's decision to turn article one OF the
resolutions over to a committee with
instructions to draft it's language
/ without notifications of the princf
pies stated in the original proposal
Secretary Hughes invited the discus
sion Immediately upon the converting
of the naval committee, and Balfour
for the British group, declared that
providing article one did in fact
really embody the existing rules OF
( war;" he personally believed it desir
able that these should be reaffirmed
in their relation to submarine war
fare"
French, British Approve
Reiterating that he spoke only for
himself, Balfour said he believed a
formal and authoritative statement
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 the French
group, said he shared wholly Bal
tours views and that the French del
egation gave ''in principle our gener
al adhesion to the statement that
submarines SHOULD of necessity be
bound by tile rules of international
law"
But as this law is of very spe
cial nature" sAdmiral de Bon said
1T seems to US that the most practi
cal solution would be to refer the
consideration of the text submitted
| by Mr.. Root to committee of jurIsts
which would advise us as to its opin
ion in regard to the wording to be
adopted"
Senator Schanzer said the Italian
delegation had already given "oul
full adhesion to the aim to which Mr.
Roots proposal te1ds,' but added the
Italian thought formulation of the
rules of war for submarines should
be examined by committee of jur
lists. The text of the Root reso1u
tions, he said, had been cabled tc
Rome.
Italy Asks Explanations
Senator Schanzer pointed out that
article one and article two of the
Root proposals appear to conflict, IN
asmuch as article one admitted with
certain reservations of the destruc
ton of merchant craft by submarines
while article two definitely prohi
bits" use of submarines for destruc
tion of merchant ships.
81 should wish, therefore," he said
Ito know in what way the second res
olution talli6s with the first"
He also suggested that "a clear
definition of merchant craft might
throw light on the question involved
He invited an explanation from Root
Sir Robert Borden, for Canada, said
he understood Root to have set forth
existing rules which had been, OF
should have been the general prac
tice in the past to govern the actor
of nations in time of war" and haC
no doubt these rules were correctly
stated and should have been follow
ed by belligerent vessels during the
recent war. although in fact, they haG
been "wantonly violated"
Replying to Senator Schanzer's in
| quiry, Root said it was obvious arti
Gle two could not be consistent with
article one, : since it proposed a
change from existing law and there
fore it is impossible to say it is not
| Inconsistent
AS to Senator Schanzer's sugges
ton that merchant ships be defined
in the proposed five power declara
ton, Root said:
Nothing Is more clearly or better
understood than the subject we cal
merchant ships. The merchant ship
its treatment, its rights, its protec
ton and its immunities are at the
base of the law of nations"
| No Question AS To Law
! He had hoped yesterday, Root con
| tinued, that the delegations would
seek expert legal opinion on his pro
posals over night and that we would
have had here today the results OF
that inquiry"
Il would like to say" he continued
that | am entitled to know whether
any delegation questions this state
ment of existing International law
i You are all in favor of the principle
| of the law if it is correct. Does this
| or does it not state the law of nations
as 1t exists? If it does, you are all
in favor of it. What, then, hinders
its adoption?''
| Root read again the brief princi
pies of his article one and again ask
ed if there was any question as to the
correctness.
MIR. Maxim" he said, turning &c
one of the British legal advisers, "is
there any doubt about that?"
Maxim replied that lin principle
there was no doubt at all
Root then took up his resolution
proposing strict application of the
rules he had set forth for submar
.VmlEnD1zIElIzlzylIII zIIEzalxz1lEhannuEnz
~