ARMED MERCHANTMEN.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17329, 18 November 1916, Page 8

ARMED MERCHANTMEN.

A rather inexplicable message from New York states that the New Zealand Shipping Company’s Rimutaka is likely to be detained there for some little time, because the State Department is considering the status of armed merchantmen. The Rimutaka, presuhir ably, carries a. gun for defence against submarine attacks, and to tliat extent she is armed, but wo understood that the whole question of tho status of such ships hpd been decided and that the American Government proposed to regard them as merchantmen and nothing else. The subject was under discussion (earlier in the war, when, it will ba remembered, Germany almost succeeded in tricking the American Government into refusing clearance to merchantmen carrying guns. However, the exchange of views between the United States and tho Allied Bowers removed the danger of misunderstanding, and Mr Lansing issued an emphatic statement that merchantmen were.entitled to be armed for defence, and that they had an established right to resist destruction or capture. This view, of course, was absolutely in accordance with the law of nations on the subject. The point that seems to have troubled Mr Lansing and hifl colleagues was .that merchantmen sighting au enemy submarine might open fire, as a precautionary measure, and the Gormans, naturally, had insisted that every British merchantman was being armed as part of the general offensive campaign against German submarines. The praotice of nations, however, was perfectly clear, and after bis first hesitation Mr Lansing stated the position quite frankly, and, apparently, finally. It was. never denied that British merchantmen were being armed to resist enemy submarine attacks,” and the Admiralty did not even claim that a merchantman would wait until,-it was attacked before opening fire. The Germans had left no room for courtesies of that kind, and the conditions of modern naval warfare, as conducted by Germany, really gave a commerce steamer no option. All this was fu\ly recognised by the American Government, and it comes as a surprise, therefore, to be told now that, the arming of a merchant steamer has created a “problem” requiring further consideration. We are inclined to think that the message regarding the Rimutaka is a mistake, or that some essential facts have been held back. If the Rimutaka had mounted her gun or guns in American waters, or had been munitioned by an American firm, a possible breach of' neutrality might have been committed, for whioh the United States could be held to neebunt in the event of the ship sinking an enemy submarine. But this explanation is an imaginative one, and presumably the ship had guns and munitions aboard when she arrived in American waters. A question might arise, of course, as to the status of a merchantman that arrived in an American port unarmed, and then, in order to meet the danger of German submarines operating off the coast, took on board from another British ship, while she was in port, guns and ammunition. Conceivably such an act might he regarded as a violation of American neutrality, even though an undertaking were given that tho guns would not be used for the purpose erf attack. Of course, there are circumstances in which no other means of protection could be found. The sudden appearance of enemy submarines off the American coast would involre danger to ships engaged in trade only between North American and South American ports, or between New York and the Pacific, along routes which had not previoualy been threatened. Such ships would have been unarmed, and if they desired to protect themselves they would either have to get guns at New York or else take the risk of sailing to a Canadian port and there shipping the weapons. The alternative would be to accept virtual internment until the menace was lifted-

No doubt we shall .learn more of the Rimutaka incident in due course, but at present the affair is rather mysterious. ’