Evening star., 1921-11-28
The Status Of Submarines.

Whether there shall be unlimited sub
marines. or no submarines at all, or
submarines for defense only. ID not, in
the opinion OF the Akron (Ohio) Bea-
con-Journal trepublican). precisely a
subject for discussion, for this paper
regards our policy as having been de-
fined when during the war our State
Department laid down the PROPOSE
tion that the merchant ship
shall have the right to carry arms for
defensive purposes and ''that the sub
marine must, in regard to merchant
ships. exercise the right Of search
as a precedent to seizure or, de-
struction," which. the Baltimore News
Independently states, "a submarine
could not observe" and that. therefore.
"the fact Of their use was crime. We
went to war partly to vindicate that
belief. We won the war. We have not
yet vindicated that belief. To
fail now to do our utmost to put an
end to them would be a gross neglect
of an imperative duty
Mainly the discussion. unlike. that
quoted above, hinges upon Mr.. Bal
fours suggestion that submarines, II
they must be retained In Havies. be
limited to coast defense. The New
York Times independent, democratic)
thinks mo case can be made out for
the use OF the submarine against mer-
chantmen." and the New York Herald
Independently finds the 'only. possible
excuse" for using 1t at all is that "it
costs less than honest ships" Even
this doubtful advantage, however, would
seem to be offset by the Louisville
Courier journal (democratic). which
points out that many countries which
cannot afford capital ships might well
have large numbers Of submarines" an
idea further elaborated by the New
York Worlds (democratic) observation
that, although the five powers might
adhere to an agreement not to build
these boats, 'that would not prevent
some third-rate power from building
submarines. and through them obtain
the the Cincinnati Times-star trepubiicanl
says that "self-interest has prompted
Great Britain to ask the delimitation
Of submarine armament" the ithaca
Journal-News Independently thinks the
request sis not incompatible with the
lily be assented to- The Dayton News
(democratic) states that the chief OBJ
lection. "as reflected from statesmen
and others in the United States. re-
lates to the long coast lines and the
likelihood that eve shall be obliged to
"The submarine Is the acknowl-
edged instrument of outlaw warfare,
as are brass knuokles, knock-o
drops and sawed-off shotguns of pro-
fessional Crooks" says the Pitts
burgh Chronicle telegraph (repub.
dndependent republican, thinks It
'has come to stay" and that for
America "the submarine Is an indis-
pensable defensive weapon" while
the Springfield (Mass) Union IRE.
publican) cautions the american
PUBLIC 70 "iys nrcndt,,,dn its fulI support 70
The s. Louis Gfobe-Dsmocrat (re-
pubIican) comedies that at may not
be practicable now to abolish the
submSri as q means OF defense" :"
hut agrees with the Manchester
Union indepenndfsnt, nf ,.',sp 'r,spubiic,ann) al. on On
called fleet submarines. which could
operate far from their bases and SO
take part in q naval war OF offense." !"
daThe only excuse for the submarine
is the torpedo" says the Buffalo
News trspublicanl. which thinks that
"would have the effect Of scrappfng
the submarfne,s and s'every one OF
them in existence should be scrap
ned" in the opinion OF the Knoxville
Journal and Tribune (republican), !,
since 'sthe sciyilised people of the
world do not want them as war ma
chines,n though the Mobile Register
(democratic) thinks there will be
no objection to the maintenance Of
police and patrol forces. SUFFICIENT to
Ruard each nations boundaries" |"
Tho Columbus Dispatch Nndependent)
thinks Mr.. Balfour's suggestions look
toward holding the 8yfhmarfno @rfgid-
that the "American delegation should
think carefully before declining to
exrso to them. while the Providence
Tribune andependsnf repuhlicanl
lthinks st would seem n IS England