REPRISALS JUST—GERMAN METHODS FOR GERMANY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LX, Issue 17063, 16 August 1917, Page 6

REPRISALS JUST—GERMAN METHODS FOR GERMANY.

By HALL CAINE.™

In view of recent air raids on London and other undefended towns, and many other acts of Hun cruelty on unarmed ships and people, Mr. Hall Came, the famous novelist, has written for the New York " Sun" the following sensational argument, demanding reprisals as the only way of curbing German fright-

fulness

. "The evidence is great that there ;s serious confusion of mind because of much recent -writing on both sides and even in the House of Lords speeches on the subject of reprisals in war. ■; ."The central argument of the Archbishop of Canterbury and fellow Churchmen and others is that, however cowardly, inhuman, unchristian the enemy's acts, equally cowardly, inhuman, and unchristian are our acts' of retaliation. ■ " But does that follow ? Consider the parallel in civil law in relation to crime. The murderer's act is physically undis-tingui'-hable from the law punishing the murderer. The act being the same, the difference lies in the motives inspiring the deed, but the moral difference completely transfigures the act, and, in the «yes of civilised Christian men, justifies civil law. . "The argument against reprisals seems to confuse the objects of attack and retaliation. The former may originate in evil passions only, such as gread and revenge and in the desire for conquest, while the latter, however tragic ■ in consequence, may originate in the purest impulses of humanity. , »" Here, again, consider the position of civil law. Why does the law hang , the murderer ? For loss of life ? To strike a balance between dead and living? To compel tlie criminal to render the equivalent of his own life for the life destroyed? Indeed, no! All such efforts would be illogical, inequitable, unprofitable, futile. , v "The laws.kill the murderers so that ' nten may not be murdered. In like , jnaimer the object of reprisal in war is to restrain the enemy from offences , which in our view are cowardly, inhuman, and un-christian. Greed, lust, ■ revenge, desire of conquest are not inspiring motives of reprisal, therefore tho moral responsibilities are not the same in reply as in attack. It will be .argued that after the criminal committed the murder and escaped justice we do not think it right to seek to kill his i wife and his children. "True, though.it was the root prin- *> I «iple of blood feud satisfying the ■world's conscience for many centuries. Jievenge of this sort was in the absence of law a wild kind of justice. By taking such revenge men thought they became even with their enemies, and Mohammed, who did much to put down the , blood feud, established a money penalty on a guilty man's tribe, thereby admitting the principle of punishing the ; innocent £.: the guilty. "But the essential' fallacy of Mohammed's theory of justice lay in the effort to secure an equivalent, which * teas really impossible. No money recompenses the child for the loss of its father. The theory of one striking 'la balance, whether in money or blood, with crime is false because it is im--1 practicable. Also it is morally wrong ' and contrary to the higher precepts of religion, aa the Christian Church im- ■ plied when.it established the rights of the sanctuary. The only justice lay in. restraining the offender, making him repent. . However wild the justice it aims after, that is the principle of reprisal. Also its justification. But, it will be asked, because an enemy sinks a shipful of. helpless wounded are we justified in ■ bombing unfortified towns, killing in> ' nocent women and children? The ansi w,er is hard and bitter in view of the i unmerited suffering it causes. The exScuse depends upon the necessity of •curbing brutality. If there is no law to punish the inhumanity of the enemy 'when he sinks hospital ships, if every (human impulse is suspended, if he is a base, crafty coward, always struggling to be beforehand with acts of cruelty land barbarity, it may be necessary, and, if necessary, it is right, to restrain him by whatever means of punishment lie within our power to inflict. ___ , "That such may involve suffering oi ~~~ the innocent is a tragic sequel, but the ' suffering of the innocent is inevitable.. In any case, it only opens the question .whether our own innocent, or the en--emy's. Taking this view, I charge the opponents of reprisal, however unwittingly they advocate the policy, of leading to further drowning of wounded men i atid continued suffering of women and f children. I their minds on the quesj't'foh of responsibility, not seeing that ■) where motives differ the acts are not ' ( morally the same, they are encouraging the criminal to continue his crimes. :They argue against reprisals because > iye cannot equal the outrages of our enemy or compete in cruelty. There is no need to compete in cruelty. Because a" criminal kills with the cowardly brut- -, ality of a Jack the Ripper, the law doas • not think it necessary to mutilate the j murderer's body. • •' "It was the moral necessity of rei prisal which brought America into the -~"["war. If ever it becomes necessary for ■her, which God forbid, to sink merchant » ship 3 I think she is justified. It will * never be necessary for her to deliberately drown sailors. . ."The Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow Churchmen are properly -anxious that we of the Allies emerge from the war untarnished by the foul crimes that stain the enemy's name. :But they do not see that the whole principle of defensive warfare must be founded on reprisals. "War is a system; reprisal is not necessarily revenge. To restrain and deter the enemy, to make him repent, is the first law of defence. The enemy ■attacks us with hows and arrows, we repel with stronger ones; he attacks us with rifles, we repel with better; he attacks with shells, we repel with bigger; he attacks with deadly gas, we repel t with deadlier. i "If defensive warfare is right, this \s M.oral wrong is with those who ihegrin unjust war, and with them alone. ' Such at least is my theory of war, and (on; that theory reprisal is expressly [ justified by the terms of the Hague l conference. That this theory of war may be unjustified under all conditions is an open question. Christians in 1 pverv age have thought it contrary to ! " the teachings of Christ. Philosophers of all countries have eormte"l 't ----- tho grossest, basest, most inhuman of . fallacies. But the ArchbishoD, in common with the majority of Churchmen who do not belong to either class, thinks war may be right, just, even because it is waged to restrain the unchn'stian impulses of a barbaric enemy. "Beino: so, I ask him, and all Americans thinking likewise, to clear tht:r minds of confusion and recognise the m^vpl justification of reprisal as an inevitnMo if unwelcome find Gainful sefmftl of the doctrine of defensive war. the doctrine thnt our right and our first dnfv must be to re?trnin the enemy. "To condemn altogether evpn defensive warfare on the ground of religion

or humanity may be logical, even exalted; but to justify war, condemning natural if tragical developments, is straining at a gnat to swallow n camel. It is no repljv to say that in reprisals we may be 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 is no answer to say 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 essence of warfare and must stand or fall with it."