Jasper County Democrat, Volume 19, Number 57, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 October 1916 — THE SUBMARINE ISSUE [ARTICLE]

THE SUBMARINE ISSUE

The state department yesterday decided that armed submarines were warships, and were entitled, as other warships are, to enter American harbors. It is, so it is held, the duty of this government not to exclude them, but to see that they make no unneutral use of our harbors. The decision is fair to all the powers, since they all have submarines which might find it necessary at some time to claim American hospitality, under the restrictions imposed by law It is believed further that the ruling is in accordance with the law.' These

boats have been denounced as ■outlaws, and as such not entitled to the privileges accorded to legal vessels. But -whether they are outlaws or not depends on the use made of them. A battleship might make itself an outlaw by violating the rules of civilized warfare. If' submarines, as such, are outlaws, there is not a first-class power in the world that does not carry these outlaws on its naval list. The entente allies would think it very hard if we. should exclude one of their submarines, seeking entrance, from an American port. The case, as was suggested yesterday, is by no means free from difficulty. But this government has, from the beginning of the war, taken the position that international law could not be changed, while hostilities continued, to meet new conditions. Germany demanded that this be done, holding that, because of the frailness of the submarine, it was not always possible for it to warn a ship about to be attacked, or to make provision for the safety of those on board. The refusal of this government was peremptory—and it was based on sound reasoning. The state department said that the fact that the submarine was a new instrument of war, not in existance at the time the legal rules were framed, was no reason for modifying the law in its favor, and no justification for its disregarding the rules which, it was said, it could not obey. Our contention was that if the submarine could not do its work under the rules it could not do it at all. The la ( w stood. It was not changed one iota in the direction of increasing the efficiency or enlarging the immunities of the undersea boats. The new demand is that we change the law so as to abridge the immunity of those boats. Again the

answer is » refusal. Having for two years treated them as warships, subject to all the limitations imposed on such vessels, it certainly would be most unfair now to say that they are not warships, and pot entitled to the privileges of warships. Having insisted that they meet the obligations imposed on them by what we. said to be their status, we can hardly deprive them, as a class, of the privileges flowing from that status. If it be said that they are a new and “different” sort of warship, that was precisely the argument advanced by Germany, and which we refused to consider. They are different, of course. It is much easier for them than for an ordinary vessel to get into a harbor and to get out of it. But the question is still the same, that is whether we shall change the law to meet new conditions. The important thing is that the new rules regulating submarine warfare should be agreed to by all nations after the war is over. If we should decide that submarines are not warships and not entitled as warships to enter our harbors, Germany might say that if they are not warships for this purpose They are not for any purpose, and so not bound by the law that governs such vessels. The policy adopted by the state department is consistent. It is well that it should be adhered to. —lndianapolis News.