The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1916. SEA CUSTOM-PAST AND PRESENT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2758, 29 April 1916, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, APRIL 29, 1916. SEA CUSTOM-PAST AND PRESENT

The United States Government has now officially announced that it recognises the right of a peaceful vessel to carry arms for defence. _ This is, of course, a general repudiation of Germany's contention that her submarines arc justified in sinking armed merchantmen without warning. The American authorities also lay clown the conditions under which, in their opinion, a submarine may legitimately capture other craft. The cable message does not give any in'formation as to the nature of these conditions, though the value of the declaration* depends largely upon the qualifications which may bo contained in the attached statement regarding, the rules of submarine warfare, One would like to bo quite' certain, that the ''conditions" do not involve concessions to Germany which might 'curtail tho customary rights of peaceful vessels to defend themselves against assailants. The right of defence has been firmly established by, sea custom and has been fully admitted by the United States in times past. Itis also in accordance with the principles- of international law. It would obviously be unfair to deprive merchantmen of an undoubted legal right by restrictive harbour regulations or hampering conditions relating to> their encounters with submarines. In the course of a decidedly interesting and instructive article on armed traders and sea custom, tho naval correspondent of'thc Times states that nothing less than a six-inch gun can be of much use against the latest types of submarine. He goes on to say that no restrictions were placed upon the quantity or calibre of the armament carried by merchantmen of • the United States or of other countries in' tho past. There are secures of instances in the history of. sea adventure in which armed traders have shown fight when attacked dr threatened by warships or privateers. The account of tho fight between sixteen East Indiamcn commanded by Commodore Nathaniel Dance and a French squadron is quite a thrilling sea story, and has direct bearing on the present controversy. It took placo on February 14, 1804. The Commodore was a daring and resourceful man and succeeded in bluffing the Frenchmen by his defiant fighting attitude and the skilful disposition of his ships. The Frenchmen hesitated, thinking that they had come across a squadron of British men-of-war, and before, they could take in the situation Dance pressed forward to the attack. The- enemy withdrew, being deprived of a rich prize, by the British commodore's audacity.; The ■ difficulty of making a clear distinction between offence and defence in encounters between merchantmen and,warships is well illustrated by an incident which occurred in the year' 1800. An East Indiaman, the Exeter, came in sight of a French frigate at dusk, and forthwith ranged up alongside the enemy and called upon him to surrender. The French captain thought that his vessel was under the guns of a British ' linc-of-battle ship. His position seemed hopeless and he hauled down his flag. American. armed merchantmen were well aware that offence is at times the best defence. The 'Times naval recounts some exciting adventures in which a certain Captain Darby played a gallant part. His ship was an armed merchantman, which, 'in the , year 1799, had several engagements with French and.Spanish privateers, and in every case beat tiiem off. Captain Darby took good care not to let his assailants get in tho first blow. He defended himself by opening fire ■' as soon as the privateer made any show of summoning him to stop/ "Captain Darby," we are told, "'never hesitated, but realising that it was a case of successful defence or capture, ho attacked on sight." Armed traders in those, days appear to have acted very promptly. They attacked any ship the moment hostile intent was shown or ovo'n suspected. It was their only chance. During the present war some of our own merchantmen have done the same tiling, and Germany has 'been endeavouring to convince America that such conduct is a violation of the rules of war. The German idea seems .to ho that a British merchantman should not assume hostile intent until she has Ween blown to pieces by a torpedo,, Germany contends that armed merchantmen should not be, allowed to : fire . on her submarines because of ; their fragility and delicate construction. This argument is cleverly satirised in a cartoon recently published in the New York Sun. It depicts Admiral von Tirpitz with the submarine wolf at tho end of a chain, also a'-group of lambs representing the merchant ships. With tears in their eyes the Molf and the Admiral exclaim: "Ach ! Who will protect us from those lambs," A memorandum recently issued by the Gorman Admiralty proves that the . contain* and crewß of British mcy.

chantmen are maintaining the best traditions of the merchant service. They are just as courageous and resourceful as the gallant men who fought or outwitted the foes of England in days of old. The memorandum gives no fewer than fifteen instances of encounters in which armed merchantmen succeeded in beating off their assailants. The German Admiralty makes some remarkable admissions. We are fold that in four cases "the submarine escaped tho well-aimed fire by submerging quickly," or that it "barely succeeded in escaping by speedily submerging." This is impressive testimony to the effectiveness of the guns of our armed traders and the skilful manner in which they are handled. Could humbug go further than the German complaint that steamers have opened fire on submarines "without any provocation," or without waiting for "a warning shot" ? Germany has boasted to all the world about her "frightful" campaign against our merchantmen, and now she protests because our captains take it for granted that German submarines mean murder. This plea for "frightfulness" without risk is altogether too absurd. One prefers the spirit of the captain of an old privateer, who, when ait armed trader threatened to fire unless he kept at a safe distance, replied: "Fire and be damned."