SUBMARINE WAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 9869, 15 January 1918, Page 5

SUBMARINE WAR

AMERICAN SHIP FIGHTS U-BOAT

A FOUR HOURS’ BATTLE RESULTS IN ENEMY’S DEFEAT.

By Telegraph.—Press Association —Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. WASHINGTON, January 13.

Tho Committee on Public Information describes a battle which lasted for four hours between tho crew of tho J. Luckenbach and a U-boat. Uie ship fired 200 rounds, until her guns were disabled. She sent out a wireless call, and an American destroyer replied “Coming; don’t surrender." The ship replied, “Never!” Finally the destroyer drove off the submarine.

BRITISH STEAMER SUNK

HUNS WATOH VICTDIS PERISH-

Australian and N.Z Cable Association. PARIS, January 13. It is reported that submarines torpedoed a British steamer of 4190 tons in the Mediterranean. She sank in three minutes. Tho submarine rose, but mado no attempt to help the crow, who clung to the upturned boats. A Frcnch vessel rescued the captain, two officers, and fourteen of the crew.

THE SINKING OF THE REWfi

GERMAN" CAMPAIGN AGAINST

HOSPITAL SHIPS

Australian and N.Z Cablo (Received January 14, 5.10 p.m.) AMSTERDAM, January 14.

' Though some German papers suggest that the Rewa struck a mine, others commenced a-fresh campaign against hospital ships, including a revival of tho accusations of misuse of the Red Cross.

Tlie ‘‘Koelnischo Volkszeitung” alleges that' the Spanish officers left tho ships because they discovered that they, were carrying troops supposed to bo suffering from fever, but who were in reality Quito healthy. This was not the first time of misuse. The greater part of the Dardanelles withdrawal was effected by means of hospital ships carrying a few wounded and many unwounded soldiers. Otherwise the greater part of the Dardanelles troops would have been destroyed. The newspaper concludes by threatening to destroy hospital ships. The British Admiralty states that it has been definitely_ ascertained that there were no mines in the vicinity of the Rewa’s sinking. BLOW TO BRITISH G&USE CONSCRIPTION FAILURE IN AUSTRALIA, ‘ :”<?!c»&raph—Pres* Association—-Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. . OTTAWA, January 13. The announcement of tho final Australian figures on the conscription vote haa reopened editorial comment in the Canadian press. Regret is again expressed at Australia’s action, which is regarded as a blow to the British cause, giving evidence of the weakened moral. The indications are that it is only too likely to cause the enemy to rejoice. Some of the newspapers suggest that Mr Hughes ought to appeal to the country purely ou tho conscription issue, and enforce the law if ho is returned. Emphasis is placed on the vital need for men. ARMY OFFICERS’ PAY INCREASES MADE BY WAR CABINET. By Telpgranji—-Press Associatlon—Copyrigbi Aas. and ET.Z. Cable Assn, and Uente*. LONDON, January 13. The War Cabinet has decided to increase tho pay of subalterns during the war to a minimum of 10s 6d a day, and to make consequential increases in the pay of captains and majors. It will also make tho allowance to children £2 each per month, up to a maximum of £8 for subalterns and captains and half as much for majors. The age limits are extended to eighteen for hoys, and twenty-ono for Unmarried girls. The charges practically correspond with the increases and allowances are generally made for all junior naval officers. It is estimated that the new army concessions will at first cost seven and a-half millions per annum. WAR HEWS CENSORSHIP A MINISTERIAL CONTROVERSY. By Tslecrapli— Press Association—Oopyrlgh) (Received January 14, 10.5 p.m.) MELBOURNE. January 14. Senator Pearce, Minister for Defence, evasively replying to the “Sun’s” censorship comments, maintains that tho particular message referred to was never published in England, but was sent direct by its London representative. Therefore it was not a case in point. Tlie “Sun’’ states that Senator Pearce’s challenge contained no reference to publication in London. Tho fact remains that the British censor passed a cable which was interfered with here. No farcical military explanation would do away with tho fact of political censorship. In an interesting controversy between Mr J, E. Fitzgerald, Minister for Health, and Senator Pearce respecting the operation of tho censorship, Senator Pearce challenged Mr Fitzgerald to produce evidence of one single instance wherein deletions had been made in war news from Britain. Mr Fitzgerald accepted the challenge, publishing expunged passages in a recent message referring solely to football matches among the Australian forces. Commenting upon such censorship, he said it was a particularly poisonous thing, because it was political censorship for partv purposes. He added; “If Senator Pearce wants further instances ho can have them, not singly, hut in battalions.”