The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 29,1915. POISON ADDED TO PILLAGE AND PIRACY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2448, 29 April 1915, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, APRIL 29,1915. POISON ADDED TO PILLAGE AND PIRACY

The use of asphyxiating gases by the Germans in recent encounters with British troops should not be attributed to a sudden outburst of devilry. It is quite in keeping with their official doctrine of "frightfulness" in war. From the beginning of tho struggle they have shown thai; they will not permit any of the generally accepted customs of civilised warfare-or the plainest'dictates of international law to restrain them from any course of action, however barbarous, which may enable them to score a point- against their adversaries. Lobd Kitchener has pointed out that the use of poisonous gases IS prohibited by an article in The Hague Convention which Germany has signed; but these modern Huns do not care a finger-snap for any agreement that does not suit their purposes. The use of asphyxia-ting fumes is of course simply a modern form of the resort to poison as a means of exterminating an enemy which has long been abandoned and condemned by nations that have any claim, to be regarded as civilised. A leading authority on international law states that the uso of poison was one of the earliest prohibitions, ravages use poisoned weapons; but civilised mankind has expelled them from its' warfare,. and- recoils with horror from the poisoning of foo'd or water, or the wilful contamination of the enemy .with disease." ■ Three hundred yenrs/ago Grotius condemned such practices as contrary to the sentiment of the most advanced nations, and other authorities are of the same opinion. Tho Hague Convention of 1907 states that any belligerent which violates the provisions of the regulations agreed to shall be ", ou ad to pay an indemnity, and shall be responsible for all acts done by,persons forming part of its armed forces. Sin Thomas Barclay, Vice-President of the Institute of International Law, _ remarks that | this_ clause has obviously no direct coercive effect, but only the value of a declaration that the contracting i parties intended the regulations to bo regarded as a binding minimum, and that no argument of military necessity was to be regarded, as justification for disregarding this written law of war." The Allies are naturally unwilling to retaliate by imitating the foul devices adopted by Germany, but drastic reprisals in some form appear to be called for. They W o U ld certainly be justifiable. When-the day of reckoning cornea Germany's deliberate violation of the law of_ nations by resorting to piraoy, pillage, and poison ought not to be allowed to go unpunished. The use of asphyxiating gases is strongly oondemned by the American Press, and retaliation by the Allies is anticipated. One New York paper declares that the first duty of civilisation after the conflict is over will bo to ohain down such barbarous instincts as Germany has shown during the present war.

There undoubtedly is a pronounced barbaric element in the German character. A report from Berlin-in-dicates that public opinion in Germany is not at all inclined to disapprove of the use of poisonoun f In fact the people-seem to glory in it, and one newspaper boastfully remarks that it was predicted that German ohemists would produce more effective gas bombs than the enemy,. Poisoning, piracy, and pillage are the natural results of the doctrines contained in the handbook issued by the German General Staff for the. guidance of officers. In Prussia_ there seems to be no lack of obliging professors who will find reasons in justification of any-methods of warfare which the generals may consider advantageous. The Hun's Handbook bans the use of poison, assassination, and the killing of prisoncrsjhutthis rule is qualified b,y the sinister remark that international law is in no way opposed to tnc exploitation of the crimes of third parties (such as assassination, incendiarism, and robbery) to the prejudice of the enemy." This gives German officers a vory wide latitude, but the direct use of poisonous fumes- even beyond t-he limits prescribed'in their own war manual. This extraordinary book declares that in certain circumstances the murder of prisoners is permissible. This crime may be. committed "incase of overwhelming necessity when other means'of precaution tlo not exist, and the existence of prisoners becomcs a danger to one's own existence." Almost eyery prohibition of savagery is followed by an explanation or qualification providing or suggesting- a variety of excuses for disregarding it whenever' it may be convenient or advantageous to do so. The opinion of the compilers of the handbook regarding the authority of international law are decidedly interesting in view of recent occurrences. They admit that Christian thought and higher civilisation have led to'the creation of a law of war, "but"—there always seems to be a "but," a- loophole, or a qualification of some sort. In, this case German officeis are told that the expression "law of war" "does not racan a lex scripla introduced by international agreements, but only a limitation of arbitrary behaviour which custom and convention, human friendliness, and a -calculating egotism have crccted, but for the observance of which there exists no express sanction. Only "the fear of reprisals" decidcs._ This means that the Germans will not be restrained from violating the generally accepted usages of war in the most outrageous manner bv any feelings of honour or humanity. The only thing that will hold them, in check is fear—the fear of retaliation. And yet there arc

people in British-speaking countries who contend that it would be very wrong to adopt a policy of reprisals. But in what other way can the Allies punish the criminal acts of a nation which openly declares that "the fear of reprisals" is the only _ effective check on foul fighting 1 It is not suggested that British troops should slaughter women and children or kill their enemies by means of deadly fumes. It is suggested that the Allies should not permit juridical niceties to prevent them from hitting back whenever the Germans adopt methods of fighting forbidden by the rules of civilised warfare.