THE UNSPEAKABLE HUN

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17273, 14 September 1916, Page 3

THE UNSPEAKABLE HUN

CAPTAIN FRYATT’S FATE. (FjlOll Ouit COHKESPOXDENT.] LONDON, August 1. It is questionable whether even the Lusitania crime or tho murder of Nurse Cavell created a greater storm of indignation in the Old Country than the execution of. Captain Fryatt, master of the Great Eastern Railway Company’s steamer, Brussels. It was sheer judicial assassination by tho Huns, for international law prescribes that tho officers and men of a merchant vessel owned by a belligerent have the right to defend themselves against attack or attempted capture by the enemy. In so doing tttcy change their character from the condition of civilians to the condition of belligerents, in which they possess the same rights as those recognised as pertaining to the armed forces of the Crown. If, therefore, the officers and men of a merchant vessel in resisting attack or capture are taken prisoners, they are entitled to the treatment accorded to civilians under, international law.

. Captain Fryatt, it appears, defended his ship against attack, and resisted capture by attempting to ram the enemy submarine U 23, which (it is said)'had ordered him to stop. In doing so, Captain Fryatt transformed himself from a civilian into a belligerent, with the rights of a belligerent, and also with the liabilities of a belligerent. Assuming that Captain Frvatt tried to ram the 1133 the cornminder of the U 33 would' then have , been, within his rights in sinking the Brussels by gunfire or torpedo without having placed officer.?, crew and passengers in safety. D 33 did nothing of tho' kind, but apparently made off. Had the U 33 captured, or sunk the Brussels after her* resistance, the Germans would still be bound to treat the passengers in her (if any) as non-com-batants. SUBMARINE PIRACY. That is the essence of international law governing this case. But the Germans are a law unto themselves, and in the present instance they applied tho rules of land war to sea war. In land war a civilian taking arms is liable to execution. In sea war ho is not so liable. The reason for the difference is explained by a naval writer in the “Post.” 'On land the control of communications necessarily passes to that belligerent which occupies the territory through which he passes. At sea there is no such thing as occupation. The sea is tho common highway of all nations, and under the law'of nations it? control in time of war is' exercised by that Power which at any given moment is able to exercise it. The ships of all nations are, therefore, privileged to defend themselves should they choose to do so, and to become thereby belligerents for the time being. . .. But sido by side with that privilege exist corresponding rules for the conduct of belligerents:, which rules, if tliev are observed,' make all defence on the" part of neutrals unnecessary. Those rules ordain that no neutral vessel shall be sunk, except in cases of extreme military necessity, and never in any circumstances until her people have been placed in absolute safety, together with their possessions. The same rule applies'to the-caso of enemy •merchant vessels, unless they resist capture, when they are, as aforesaid, to bo treated as belligerent vessels of war. The violation of these rules, which have received, the common consent of ■ all civilised nations, including Germany, is known ns piracy, and it is the right.and the duty of every nation, whether neutral or belligerent, to ex terminate pirates. The German .Navy has been repeatedly guilty of piracy Neutral .ships, have, many times been •sunk without, warning, and morchanf vessels and 1 fishing craft belonging, to tho belligerents have been sunk without warning and their officers and crews murdered, just as surely as though they had • been compelled to “ walk tho plank.” THE KAISER .APPROVES.

We are told in official messages from 'Berlin that Captain Fryatt* s offence consisted in the fact that “ he made an attempt, on the afternoon of March 28, 19i5, to ram the German submarine U 33 near the Maas lightship.” The sentence of death, according to one report, was approved by tho Kaiser himself. Condemned in the morning, Capfain Fryatt was shot that same afternoon, though in tho meantime Imperial confirmation of the sentence—the Emperor being many miles away—had to bo obtained. Tiie utmost expedition was shown to murder this man, who, according to the Germans', only carried out the orders he had received from the Admiralty. When tho action of. German submarines was denounced in this country, it was urged that, tho. commanders anu their crews should not oe held accountable, as they had only carried out superior orders. .When crews of submarines wore captured by the British Is ary, the Admiralty, moved for a time perhaps by T popular clamour for reprisals, was at first inclined to make a drastic distinction between them and _ othei German prisoners of war, but_ m the end decided that the real culprits were file authorities under whose orders the infamies were committed. Officers and men were accorded, and are to-day receiving, the utmost consideration; they me I'ving in comfort —well housed and wed fed. A CONTRAST. INDEED. ' Mark the contrast 'in the British and German .methods of treating men who merely obov orders. According to the Germans, Captain Fryatt confessed that “ ho acted in accordance with the instructions of the Admiralty.” A similar .declaration in' the case of German submarine prisoners was held to be a measure of excuse for their illegal and inhumane acts, though the thought or tho thousands of children, women and defenceless men murdered on the hmh seas urged us to reprisals. Germany regarded the plea which, it is stated, was put in by Captain Fryatt as conclus’.VG evidence of his personal guilt, and forthwith executed him. .... There is no need to labour tho indictment of Germany. But, in the face ot the sinking of the Lusitania, Ancona, Persia, Ville de la Ciotat, other vessels, with heavy loss or life, the murder of Nurse Caved and of Captain Fryatt, what are we to thiniv of a nation whose representative at the last Ma<me Conference, Baron Marschall von Bieberstcin (after declaring that military acts are not ruled exclusively by military law), added‘ there are other factors —conscience, good sense and the sentiment of tile duties imposed by the principles 'of Humanity will bo the surest guides . . •. Wlil stituto the most efficac ous Bdarafttee abuse." Do also attributed great importance to the opinion or neuaa's" WHAT OF REPRISALS?

Well, all the neutrals that are worth mention have expressed opinion concerning the submarine crimes aloiementicned, and upon tho executions o. Nurse Cavcll and Captain Fryatt, and Germany stands condemned by the neutral jury on all counts. But apparently tho verdict of the civilised womu causes less inconvenience to the German conscienco than the proverbial w«tei on a duck's back,” for as the days owar pass by almost ovory ono brings to light some further revelation of Germany’s outlawry, some fresh mockery of Baron von Bieberstein’s protestations. And, it seems, the more the Central Powers feel the Allied pressure tlio more ferociously will the Iluns deal with the helpless creatures whom illfortune has placed or may place at tlieir mercy. When men aDd women think of the thousands of corpses at the bottom of the sea, the harvest of sub-

marine and mine; of the graves of the peaceful inhabitants of sequestered villages or unprotected holiday resorts, who have been done to death by raiding cruisers or Zeppelins; of the agonies of the victims of the new “ slavery,” of the sufferings of tho prisoners now in German hands; of- the calculated cruelties practised on the people in the occupied territories, and of the murders of Nurse Cavell and Captain Fryatt; arid they ask, “What can be done, now and at oneo without' respect for God or man?” it is easier to ask than to answer that question. People talk glibly of “ reprisals ” and “ retaliation,” but all the evidence wo eon deduco points to the fact that the Kaiser and his satellites do not care a straw what tho Allies' do with their prisoners. They are merely dead men so far as tho War Machine’s, work is concerned, and as such are of no further account. What we do to them may matter to the men individually and to their nearest and dearest, but since they are no longer of any use to tho War Lord, they might as well be dead and the manner of their dying will not worry him. And wo can be sure that reprisals on our part would be countered by measures of retaliation calculated to make us reel with the sickness of sheer horror. At the inhuman violations of tho prescriptions of civilised humanity wo cannot match tho Hun, whoso organised depravity and ferocious brutality are staining the pages of history more deeply than they have been stained for a thousand years.