ESTABLISHED 1866. THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1915. CONCERNING REPRISALS.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIX, Issue 93, 22 April 1915, Page 4

ESTABLISHED 1866. THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1915. CONCERNING REPRISALS.

The suggestion made by the president of the Brittany Shipowners' Association that for every merchant vessel destroyed by German submarines one of the numerous German vessels now interned in • British, French, or Russian ports shoafd be seized, and presumably handed over to the owners of the vessel destroyed, will strike most people, outside Germany, as a most excellent and timely, proposal. In French ports alone there are, it is stated, no fewer than 278 Gern;an vessels which have been seized or captured since the outbreak of war, and in all probability there are quite 500 German vessels in British ports. Whatever doubt there may be as to t-Jse position, these ships were in under the tfp-^pe rules dealing with the merchant marine of belligerents, that Ss to say, the position previously to the inauguration by the enemy of n system of deliberate

piracy and cold-blooded murder, tliero :mi\ be surely no doubt as to n]J agi'Rg/

mcuts or laws Meeting such vessels'! having beeii summarily ended by } I Germany's adoption of piracy. There ' 6 , Should therefore be no hesitation on | j the part <of the Allied Governments about .enforcing the wholesome and e-ssentiaJty just, course suggested by -M. Mazaubau, Since Germany has want-only made war upon non-com-batants, and in her insane, but fortunately largely futile, attempts to destroy Great Britain's mercantile marine has instituted a system of open and insolent piracy, she cannot rightfully complain at the bar of nations if the Allies have recourse to a policy of retaliation which, though assuming a much more humane form than the pirate policy of their enemy, will, if it be carried into effect, strike terror into the hearts of the Hamburg and Bremen shipowners. "An eye for an eye, a. tooth for a tooth" —and why not "a ship for a ship"? The fact that certain British and French merchant steamers are- interned in German ports need not seriously affect the British and French Governments in their consideration of M. Mazauban's proposals.. For the number- of these vessels is substantially less, than is that of tho enemy's vessels lying under similar conditions at the ports;-of the Allies.- Besides which j when tins-war is over the vic-torious-British-and French can secure an indemnity for. any difference against tlienv in the .tonnage of the! vessels seized ?jy either side. By adopting a system of bare-faced piracy Germany has placed herself outside all international law, and it is absurd to have any scruples about Hague Conventions or the agreements signed thereat when Germany has torn them up with such open contempt for.her plighted word. When one party to a contract impudently repudiates it, caring nought for the dishonor which attaches to a broken agreement, it is the height of folly for the other contracting parties to remain at a disadvantage by scrupulously observing their part of the arrangement. The enemy should be fought with each and every weapon, of no matter - what character, which can be profitably utilised against them. There is, we believe, a growing feeling—certainly it exists in New Zealand and Australia, whatever may be the case* in the Motherland —that the Imperial Government is "exhibiting a most lamentable weakness with regard to the officers and crews of German submarines who have fallen into tho hands of tho British. Mere imprisonment,'" even under specially severe conditions, does not meet the case. Men who act as pirates, who destroy. British merchant vessels, and murder non-combatants, jeering at drowning men.and even committing the infamy of attacking ( hospital ships, should be treated as pirates and hanged red-handed as they are caught. If G-ermany dares to retaliate by shooting' one British officer, then it should be made clear to the Kaiser that bis own Imperial skin will be in danger when, ,the war comes to an end and the question of indemnities comes to be"dealt with. There can be little doubt that the piracy policy was the special idea of the Kaiser, who, in his blind wrath against-Great Britain, overrode every objection which some of ..the more de-cent-miiided German statesmen appear to have held. It is true that an inspired report in a Dutch paper .credits the Kaiser with having been loth "to agree to the scheme. This statement, however, Js...nro.b.ably a wilful mendacity, set afloat to save the Imperial fac^. Practically every speech deliveml by the Kaiser breathes' a -special aiid almost insane rage against''-.England. Had the Kaiser really objected: to the "babykilling" expedition arid to- the foul deeds of the submarine pirates these ■ would never have been authorised. He and he alone should be held responsible by the British Government, just as he is, we .'firmly believe, held responsible by the British people. The submarine pirates when captured should, we repeat, be hanged forthwith, and should tbr-r© "re reprisals in Germany, let suchl occur at the peril of the War Lord's own neck! The last word in reprisals will be siaid by the Allies, not by th© Huns. Meanwhile, the."proposal, to seize one German merchant .steamer for every ' British or. French steamer torpedoed by German, submarines should be carried into execution without delay- .::.--.