GERMAN THREAT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20061, 6 October 1939, Page 7

GERMAN THREAT

BRITISH REPLY RULES OF WARFARE ATTACK AND DEFENCE AUTHORITIES QUOTED JURIST OF BERLIN (Elci.'. Ti'l. Copyright—United Press Assn (British Official Wireless.) Reed. 11.15 a.m. RUGBY. Oct. 5. Each week the tonnage on British shipping lost through the action of U-boats has decreased. It may be revealed that only one British ship, a vessel of 87G tons, was sunk this week, though in view of the sinking, with great brutality, of a number of neutral merchantmen, it is plain that the U-boats are still about. In connection with the German threat in regard to British merchantmen as warships, the distinction between armed merchant cruisers and defensively-armed merchant ships is emphasised here. According to the recognised rules of war the latter may not take the offensive against a U-boat, but can only evade or avoid capture and cannot be regarded as warships. Though British merchantmen have been armed for defensive purposes, according to the recognised legal right, no British merchantmen have attacked U-boats and no warships have been disguised as merchantmen. Recent German broadcasts in Spanish have again, contained the statement that, the arming of merchant vessels turns them into “franc-tireurs.” This conflicts with the accepted views of international jurists that, although belligerent merchant ships may legally be captured on the high seas, their crews may legally fight to defend their vessels from capture. The right to effect capture and the right to avoid and resist it are equally valid. Summarised in Last War Dr. Ellery C. Stowell correctly summarised the position 'n 1916. He stated: “An important consideration is that upon the outbreak of this war we find merchantmen possessing the right to arm for defence. I have never heard of this right being questioned before the war. Yet it is well understood that piracy and privateering were no longer a menace to peaceful commerce.” Dr. Hans Wehberg, a German international lawyer, shared this opinion. In a publication dealing with the law of naval warfare published during the Great War he said:. “Resistance of enemy merchant ships to capture would only be unlawful if a rule against it had found common recognition, but in truth no single example can be produced from international precedents in which States have held resistance is not lawful.” These two arguments concern armed merchantmen, not armed, ci niseis which, since they are commissioned as vessels of war, are entitled to engage in offensive belligerent operations, but Lose the status of merchant ships. It is officially announced in Paris hat a French submarine captured a German merchantman.