REPRISALS JUST—GERMAN METHODS FOR GERMANY.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 7917, 11 August 1917, Page 3 (Supplement)

REPRISALS JUST—GERMAN METHODS FOR GERMANY.

By HALL CAINE. • 0 f recent air raids on Lon,nj other undefended towns, many other acts of Hun cruelunarmed ships and people, f Ball Caine, the famous novella h»>> written for the New York f: T t i, P following sensational ar’aent, demanding reprisals as the ’■ of curbing German frightfulness. evidence is great that there is 1 infusion of mind because of s* r etent writing on both sides and the House of speeches subject of reprisals in war. iflje central argument of the ArchlL 0 f Canterbury and fellow rSuneii and other’s is that, however rjiv. inhuman, unchristian the enfri,’c{St equally cowardly, inhuman, iBDChrl-tian are onr acts) of retali{.,tdoe- that follow? Consider the jU in civil laiw in relation to crime, ignfderer's act is plif.'sically undis:,ha!i!e from the law punishing the The act being the same, the nn . lies in the jpotives inspiring but the moral difference comjT tran 'figures the nirt, and, in the jf (ivili-ed Christian men, ju3tiM l*w. argument against reprisals - to conf use the objects of attack iftalhtion. The former may originevil passions only, such as greed and in the desire for con- * while the latter, however tragic may originate in the -timpuhes of humanity. foe, again, consider the position ml law. Why does the law hang jjrdrrer? For loss of life? To if a balance between dead and livi To compel the criminal to render univalent of his own life for the Indeed, no ! All such * would be illogical, inequitable, iftahlc, futile. jplaw, kill the murderers so that |Bg p not be murdered. In like yr the object of reprisal in war is grain tbo enemy from offences 0 our view are cowardly, it>humd uiM-hristian. Greed, lust, ,j t desire of conquest are not inL motives of reprisal, therefore joral are not the a reply as in attack. It will he dthat after the criminal commit-pmurdt-r and escaped justice we (think it right to seek to kill his ui his children. bp. though it was the root prinof Mood feud satisfying the j conv i.-nee for many centuries, wot tin' sort was in tile absence ? wild kind of justice. By takA revenge men thought they be*vdi with tlieir enemies, and Mold. who did much to put down the feud. • -tahlished a money penalt guiltv man’s trifle, thereby ndi the principle of punishing the ■t for the guilty. t the essential fallacy of Molds theory of justice lay in the to -ecure an equivalent, which wll impossible. No money the child for the loss of her. The theor«* of one striking ttf, whether in money or blood, trime is false because it is irniobk>. Also it is morally wrong Htrnrv io the higher precept- of j& ai the Christian Church imThen it established the rights of ■etiiary. The only justice lay in imng the offender, making him pm \uld the justice it aims ithat is the principle of reprisal, ti jnstitic itiou. But, it will be Lkcansc an enemy sinks a shipful tyrs; wounded are we justifi**<l ill ig unfortified towns, killing inI women and children? The nnsIhard and bitter in view of the ritrd suffering it causes. The exdfp‘ii'l' upon the necessity of It hmtiilitv. If there is no law csli the inhumanity of the enemy ihf sinks hospital ships, >f every limpube is suspended, if he is a 'ratty coward, always struggling iWforeli-md with acts of cruelty hrharity, it m-aC bo necessary, iiKesviry. it is right, to restrain »whatever mean , of punishment tel our power to inflict, kt ; b may involve suffering of iw-iit i- a tragic sequel, hut the Rg of the innocent is inevitable, ica'p. it only opens the question •f our own innocent or the eni Taking this view, T charge the IK* rf reprisal, however ii.mvitite" mlvoi ate the policy, of lead•hither drowning of wound**! men ■tinmd suffering of women and ■fusing their minds on the ques■responsibility, not seeing that Dotiw- differ the acts are not “the s’me. they are encouraging te’nal to continue his crimes, fpie against reprisals because ■ot equal the outrages of our compete in cruelty. There is dtn compete in cruelty. Because ■alkil - with the cowardly brutI*Jack the Kipper, the law does ■i it m ;-essary to mutilate the *rs Ihml v . thrh brought America into the ««'ver it bocomes necossirv for fdi (h d forbid, to sink merchant think die is justified. It will *npc.-s;iry for her to delibersailors. Anh ! :-!)<• pof Canterbury and hw Cburchmen are properly that we of the Allies emerge untarnished by the foul ter -tain the enemy’s name. * do mit see tint the whole »cf d< epsive warfare must bo lon reprisals. fK :• V'tem; reprisal is not PM-ng,.. To restrain andl ■enemy, to make him repent-, law of defence. The enemy us witli bows and arrows, wo J 'tr« nger ones; lie attacks us . • we repel with better; lie at■hs!i. 11-. we repel with bigger: with deadly grs, we repel Jrndiv warfare is right, this Is v°rn 1 wrong is with those who *" : 't w;ir. mid with them alone. ‘ i- inv tbeow of war. ami [ the ir v reprisal i, expressly hy tb,* terms of tlm Hague That t-his- theory of war under all renditions question. Christians in lrve thought it contrarv to ln -s of Christ. Philosophers hntn, - have counted it among j ba evt. most inhuman of !, But the Archbishop, in oom- ' ' ( f ClillM 'I 'lll'll

doctrine that our right and our first duty must he to restrain the enemy. “To condemn altogether even defensive warfare on the ground of religion or humanity may lie logical, even excited; but to justify war, condemning natural if tragical developments, is straining at a gnat to swallow a. camel. It is no replv to say that in reprisals we may he fighting those not fighting us. Since David met the Philistine the fate of the non-combatant has been in the hands of the combatants.

“It i< no answer to sav that reprisals are barbaric. Aggressive warfare is barbaric. Defensive barbaric warfare is a necessity. In the absence of law to punish wrong all necessity is right. Reprisal is the evence of warfare and must stand or fall with it.”