Evening Star Newspaper, December 30, 1921, Page 4

THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. 0, FRIDAY, DECEMBER $0, 192f. Conference Agrees on International Law Aimed to Prevent Submarine Outrages in Warfare FORMER CODE TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT, SAYS ROOT {There Must Be No Recurrence of Lusitania Horror, Attitude of U.S.—Delegates Strive To Arrive at Common Understanding. The following official statements were issued yesterday after the two meetings of the arms conference subcommittees: The eighth joint meeting of the com- mittee on the limitation of armament and the subcommittee on naval limi- tation. was held this morning, Decem- ber 29, at 11 o'clock in the Pan-Amer- ican building. The chairman (Mr. Hughes) opened the meeting by say- ing that if there were no objections, the committee would take up the res- olutions proposed and read vesterday by Mr. Root relative to the action of submarines in warfare. It seemc best to take the articies up separately. The first article related to rules deemed an established part of Inter- national la It summarized in a clear, concise manner the existing rules governing the action of bellig- erent ships of war in relation to mer- chant craft and stated the unequivo- cal position that belligerent sub- marines were not exempt from these rules. He then invited discussion. Mr. Balfour said that, as he under- stood the question which Mr. Hughes had put, it referred to the first of Mr. Root's propositions which, as Mr. Hughes had said, purported to be a statement in clear and explicit lan- guage of the existing rules of war and their application to submarines. So far as he was personaHy concerned, he ‘agreed that such a statement should be made. He was not lawyer enough to say whether the existing rules were correctly summarized, and on this he would have to consult his own legal advisers. Provided, how- ever, that the resolution did really embody the existing rules of war, he thought it most desirable that these rules should be reaflirmed in their re- lation to submarine warfare. DYer- haps on this matter he ought only to speak for himself. He personally held the view that a formal and au- thoritative statement that submarines had no license to break the rules by which other ships of war were bound could do nothing but good. Favored by De Bon. Admiral De Bon sai “I share wholly the views expressed by Mr. Balfour. Tre French delega- tion has repeatedly had occasion to condemn the practices followed by the German submarines during the last war. “We are then thoroughly imbued with the high humanitarian motives which have dictated tre resolutions presented by Mr. Root, to which we give in principle our general adhe- sion. But we have no jurist in our delegation, and we recognize that cer- tain of these resolutions have a hear- ing on the complicated rules of in- tarnational law. “Wd can then hardly do otherwise than to subscribe to tke spirit of these resolutions and to repeat that the submarine should of necessity be bound by the rules of international law. But as this law is of a very spe- cial nature it seems to us that the most practical solution would be to refer the consideration of the text submitted by Mr. Root to a committee of jurists which would advise us as to its opinion in regard to the word- ing to be adopted.” Schanzer in Accord, Mr. Schanzer said: *“I entirely associate myself with Mr. Balfour's and Admiral @e Bon's remarks. We gave yesterday our full adkesion to the aim to which Mr. Root's proposal tends, but we also think that the question of formulat- ing rules for the use of submarines in war is, above all, a legal question, which ought to be examined by a competent committee of jurists. “We have forwarded the text of Mr. Root's proposal to our government and are awaiting eventual remarks from the same. At any rate, it might be useful even now to point out a few ques- tions to which the proposal might give rise in order to contribute to the future discussion. “It seems to me difficult, in the first place, to separate the first resolution from the second, which definitely pro- hibits the use of submarines for the destruction of merchant craft. The first resolution, on the contrary, ad- mits in determined cases the destruc- tion of merchant craft after certain provisions have been observed. I should wish. therefore, to know in what way the second resolution tal- Hes with the first. ‘Wants Craft Defined. “In the second place, I believe that it might be useful to give a clear definition of merchant craft in order to make them recognizable and to es- tablish plainly in which cases a sub- marine shall abstain from attacking a ehip and in which cases, on the contrary, attack is to be permitted, as, for ex- ample, in the case of a merchantman regularly armed or of a privateer. “I have not made these remarks in any spirit of opposition, as we have de- cided to collaborate to the best of our ablility in order to attain tae aim which the American delegation has in view. My reason for speaking was to give Mr. Root the opportunity for such explana- tion as might throw ilght on the terms in which his proposals are formulated.” Sir Robert Borden said that, in offer- ing 2 few observations in regard to the proposals presented, he was with- out the advantage of having heard Mr. Root’s explanations on the pre- vious day. Further, his views were purely personal and must not be re- garded as binding on any other mem- ber of the delegation to which he belonged. As he understood the pro- posals, Mr. Root had set forth exist- ing rules which had been, or should have been, the general practice in the past to govern the action of nations in time of war. In setting forth article 1, Mr. Root ‘had placed the Tules of submarines on a much higher plane than had been the case with the nations with whom we had been at war for a period of four years. They bad wantonly violatd thess rules. He had no doubt that thestatement of the rules in article 1 was correct and should have been followed by bellig- erent vessels. Mr. Root’s proposal, however, went much further. In artiole 2 the signatory powers were asked to pledge themselves to recog- nize the practical impossibility of using submarines as commerce de- stroyers without violating the re- quirements universally accepted by civilized nations for the protection of lives of neutrals and non-combatants, and to the end that the prohibition of such use shall be universally acoepted @s a part of the law of nations they ‘were asked to declare their assent to such prohibition and to invite all other nations to adhere thereto. ‘Would Set Punishment. As he understood this article, it was ntended to mark a notable and most desirable advance on the existing rules. Mr. Root had first stated the existing practice and had then suggested this advance. He thought it would be wise and indeed essential in the interests of bumanity that this proposal should be socepted. The exact wording, however, must be oonsidered and he did not dis- agree with the suggestion for examina- tion by an expert body, provided that this should not prevent action by this conference. In article IIT Mr. Root had gfi rather further. He had laid down { 1 governmental superior, should be deem- ed to have violated the laws of war and should be liable to trial and punish- ment as if for an act of piracy, ete. Having regard to some experiences of his own country In tae late war, and especially to one occasion when twenty Canadian nurses had been drowned as the result of the torpedoing of a hospi- tal ship and the subsequent sinking of the ship's boats, he could say that the feeling of his country was strongly in favor of the proposal that any person guilty of such conduct, whether under the orders of his government or not, should be treated as a pirate and brought to trial and punishment as such. Mr. Hanihara said: “The Japanese delegation is in en- tire accord with the substance of ar- ticle T of the proposed resolution. As regards the suggestion whether it is not advisable to refer the matter to a committee of experts for drafting, I am rather inclined to follow it, notjjabor that we have any particular point in mind on which we have observations to offer, but merely in order to make it sure that it leaves nothing to be de- sired as to its precise wording. We may instruct the committee to exam- ine it in this sense and not to touch|month, January, 1922. the substance of it.” Mr. Root Explains. Mr. Root said: “Senator Schanzer has asked some|tions for its advisers went beyond questions, to which I shall reply. “First. As to the agreement Of ar-|g, much impressed were they all with ticle I of the resolutions now before | the nocessity for a restatemant of the the committee with the second article|ryjag of the law of nations as a re- relative to the prohibition of making|suit of the war (what happened dur- use of submarines as commerce de-ling the war and the consequences of stroyers, which he deems inconsistent|ihe war) that they made a recom- with article I “Article I is a_statement of exist-' i S B0 (P G : % presentative of Great Britain, ing law; article II, if adopted, would | 3" & FEPFTSCRIALIVS Of BEla ot the constitute a change from the eXIsting |pizpest court, and representatives for law and therefore it is impossible to say that it is not inconsistent. If it were not inconsistent there would be no change. Article II could not be con- | sistent with article I and still make a change. “Senator Schanzer also suggests that the resolution be completed, in- cluding a definition of ‘a merchant ship.’ Throughout all the long history of international law no term has been better understood than the term ‘a merchant ship.’ “It could not be made clearer by the addition of definitions, which would only serve to weaken and con- fuse it. The merchant ship, its treat- ment, its rights, its protection and its Immunities are at the base of the law of nations. Nothing is more clearly or better understood than the subject we call merchant ship. Believed Legally Correct. “Now with regard to the proposal to refer this matter to a committee of lawyers, far be it from me to say _anything derogatory of the members of the profession of which I have been a humble member for more years than I care to remember. They are the salt of the earth; they are the noblest work of God; they are superior in intellect and authority to all other people whatsoever. But both this conference and my own life are approaching their termination. I do not wishgghese resoiutions to be in the hands a commission even of lawyers after we adjourn. “I supposed, when we adjourned vesterday and after what had been said concerning the opportunity for critical examination, that the different Gelegations would call in their own experts and ask their advice with re- gard to this resolution, which is now the only one before the committee. I had supposed that the experts in in- ternaticnal law brought here for the purpose of advising wbuld have been asked whether this was a correct statement of the rules and that we would have here today the results of that inquiry. “I would like to say that I am en- titled to know whether any delega- tion questions this statement of exist- ing international law. You are all in favor of the principle of the resolu- tion if it is correct. Does this or does it not state the law of nations as it exists? If it does you are all in favor of it. What, then, hinders its adop- tion? Prescribed Rules. “Senator Schanzer, in describing the action of submarines with regard to merchant vessels, repeated on his own behalf the very words of this resolu- tion. The very words—ipsissimis verbis—of this resolution may be found in Senator Schanzer's remarks. My respect for the learning, expe- rience and ability of the various dele- gates around this table forbids me to doubt that every one here is perfectly familiar with the rules and usages as stated in the first clause of article I This does not purport to be a codi- fication of the laws of nations as re- gards merchant vessels or to contain all of the rules. It says that the fol- lowing are to be deemed among the existing rules of international law. ‘The time has come to reaffirm them. “l. ‘A merchant vessel must be or- dered to stop for visit and search to determine its character before it can be captured.” “Do we not all know that is true? It is a long-established principle. “2. ‘A merchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to stop for visit and search after warning.’ “3. ‘A merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and pas- sengers have first been placed in safety.’ “Is there any question whatever as to the correctness of these state- ments? Turning to one of the British legal advisers, Mr. Root asked: “Mr. Mil- kin, is there any doubt about that?”’ Mr. Malkin replied that in principle there was no doubt at all. Regarded Elementary. “As Mr. Lodge remarks to me, continued Mr. Root, his is only ele- mentary. The object .of the resolu- tion is to form something which will crystallize the public opinion of the world. It was made perfectly simple on purpose. “Then follows a principle of vital importance, on which I challenge denial. If all the lawyers in the world should get together they could not decide the question more con- clusively. The public opiniocn of the world says that the submarine is not under any circumstances exempt from the rules above stated, and, if 80, they cannot capture merchant vessels. This is of the greatest im- portance. That is a negation of the assertion of Germany in the war that if a submarine could not capture a merchant vessel in accordance with established rules, the rules must fail and the submarine was entitled to make the capture. The public opinion of the civilized world has denied this and has rendered its judgment in the action that won the war. It was the revolt of humanity against the po- sition of Germany that led to Ger- many’'s defeat. Is that not a true rendering of the opinion of the civ- ilized world, which we seek to ex- press. My friends and colleagues, this is real life we are dealing with here. This is no perfunctory busi- ness for a committee of lawyers. It is a statement of action and of un- disputed principles universally known and not open to discussion, put in such a form that it may crystallize the public opinion of the world, that there may be no doubt in any future war whether the kind of action that sent down the Lusitania is legitimate war or priacy. *“This conference was called for what? | 1 l ) l limitation is not the end, only the means. It is the belief of the world that this conference was convened to promoto the peace of the world—to relleve man- kind of the horrors and the losses and the intolerable burdens of war. Urges Declaration. “We cannot justify ourselves In sep- arating without some declaration that will give voice to the humane opinion of the world upon this subject, which was the most vital, the most heartfel the most stirring to the conscience and to the feeling of the people of all our countries of anything that occurred dur- ing the late war. I feel to the depth of my heart that the man who was re- sponsible for sinking the Lusitania com- mitted an act of piracy. I know that all my countrymen with whom I have had intercourse feel the same, and 1 should be ashamed to go on with this confer- ence without some declaration, some pro- nouncement, which will give voice to the feeling and furnish an opportunity for the crystallization of the opinion of mankind in the establishment of a rule ‘which will make it plain to all the world that no man can commit such an act again without being stigmatized as a pirate. “There are two ways In which this question that Germany raised about the right of submarines to disobey the rules of international law—what they zajd in the way of destroying a merchant vessel—can be settled. With the whole dominion of the air un- regulated by interuational law, with the score of difficult questions star- ing us in the face (such as block- ade, contraband and other questions in the field of law), there was a recommendation made by the com mittee of jurists which assembled at The Hague last year, 1 upon the invitation of the council of the league of nations, to devise and re- port a plan for an international court of justice. The commission met at The Hague, and after some months of thoy recommended a which, with some modification: opted by the council and by assembly of the league of nations, un- der which judges of the new court have been appointed and under which that court is about to convene next Conclusion of Jurists. “The commission of jurists selected by the council of the league of na- the strict limit of its authority, and mendation upon it. There were pres- France (a very distinguished repre- | sontative), of Belgium, of Japan, of Holland. of Norway. of of Brazil and ono from the United States of America. They were all there in their indlvidual capacities, but com- ing from nine different countries and selected by the council of the league of nations, and invited thera to be their advisers.” All of these gentle- men unanimously agreed upon this resolution: he advisory committee of jurists, assembled at The Hague to draft a plan for a permanent court of inter- national justice, “Convinced that the security of statcs and the wellbeing of peoples umsgently require the extension of the empire of law and the development of all international agencies for the administration of justice, Recommends: “I. That a new conference of the nations, in continuation of the first two confecrences at The Hague, be held as soon as practicable for the following purposes: To Restate Rules. . To restate the established rules of international law, especialiy, and in the first instance, In the flcids af- fected by the events of the recent war. “2. To formulate and azrec upon the amendments and additions, if any, to the rules of international law shown to be necessary or useful by the events of the war and the changes In the conditions of in national lifc and intercourse which have followed the war. “3. To endeavor to reconcile di- vergent views and secure general agreement upon the rules which have been in dispute herctofore. . To consider the subjects not now adequately regulated by inter- national law, but as to which the in- terests of international justice require that rules of law shall be declared cepted. A ACThat the Institute of Interna- tional Law, the American Institute of International Law, the Union Juri- dique Internationale, the Internationa Law Association and the Iberian In- stitute of Comparative Law De In- vited to prepare with such conZference or collaboration inter esse as they may deem useful, projects for the work of the conference to be submit- ted beforehand to the several gov- ernments and laid before the confer- ence for its consideration and suchj action as it may find suitable. “III. That the conference be named onference for the Advancement of International Law. “IV. That this conference be fol- lowed by further successive confer- ences at stated intervals to continue the work left unfinished. Law Mast Prevail. “That recommendation was com- municated to the council of the league of nations, was somewhat modified by the council and then referred to the assembly of the league of nations, and by the assembly was rejected. The door was closed. Where do we stand? Is this not to be 2 world recu law? What are our d K worth if we give our a nt to the proposition that the impulse of the moment, the unregulated and uncon- strained instincts of brute force, shall rule the world, and that there shall be no law? If there is to be no law, some- | body must move. There is no ade- quate law now with regard to sub- marines. There is ro law now regard- ing aircraft. “There is no law now regarding poisonous gases, and somebody must move. The door to a conference is closed, and here we are met in a sol- emn conference of the five greatest powers upon the limitation of arma- ments and charged to do something toward the peace of the world. This resolution proposes to restate the rules of war that have been trampled under foot, flouted and disregarded. This resolution proposes that we as- sert again the domination of those humane rules for the protection of human life, and that we discredit and condemn the attempt to overturn them. This resolution proposes to tell what we really believe; that we| characterize as it ough8 to be char- acterized the attempy to overturn the rules impressed by humanity upon tre conduct of its governments. Is there a delegation here that can af- ford to go back to its own people and say to them, ‘Upon the proposal being presented to us we referred it to a committee of lawyers and adjourned? It will not down. These resolutions speak with a voice that will continue insistently. 1 am not going to be buried under a committee of lawyers myself, and these rules cannot be buried under them. Either we speak clearly and intelligibly the voice of humanity which has sent us kere, and to which we must report, or that voice will speak for itself and, speaking without us, will be our condemnation. Asks for Vote. “Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the reference of this resolution to a com- mittee of lawyers or to any other committee. I ask for a vote upon it here. If the delegation of any country represented here has any error to point out in it, I am ready to correct it, but I ask for a vote upoa 1t, in furtherance of the principle to which every one of my colleagues around this table has given his adherence.” After the foregoing had been in- terpreted, Mr. Root said: “Mr. Chairman, I omitted in answer- ing Senator Schanzer’s very discrimi- nating question regarding the rela- tions between articles I and II to say that of course if the second article were adopted by all the world, it ‘would supersede article L This, how- ever," would be a long, slow process and during the interval the law as it stands must apply until an. .?M‘ I I ! i merchant ve: is reached. Article I also explains in authorized form the existing law and can be brought forward when the public asks what changes are Dpro- posed. In proposing a change it is necessary to make clear what the law now is. It is very important to link this authoritative statement In article I with the new principle pro- posed in article IL” Examination Desired. Sir John Salmond said: “While not doubting the substan- tial accuracy of the resolutions pro- posed by Mr. Root and while I am of opinion with him that it is un- necessary to appoint a committee of jurists to determine the law as re- Fards merchant ships in war of the capture of private property at sea. at the same time the resolutions as they stand are not free from am- biguities and formal defects. Al- though reference to such a legal com- mittec is unnecessary, I think there should be opportunity givén for ver- bal amendments. For example: Para- graph three of Rule 1 that a mer- chant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers have been first placed in safety. 1s this intended to give absolute immunity to the merchant ship from attack un- less the crew and passengers are first placed in safety even although the ship has refused to stop on being warned? Read literally this would be the effect of the rule. Secondly, the re- lation between resolutions 1 and 2 does not appear in the text and a verbal explanation by Mr. Root was necessary to explain it. While, therefore, I am in absolute agree- ment with the substance of Mr. Root's resolutions and support his refusal to put off the matter by ref- erence to a committee of lawyers, I think there is no haste which could justify our not being given oppor- tunity for the examination and for- mal amendment of these resolutions. Lodge Asks for Policy. Senator Lodge said: “Ar. Chairman, I should not ask to take up the time of the conference if I could attend the meeting this after- noon. 1 hope we may have a reason- ably speedy declsion in this matter and I do not like to have a decision reached without having expressed my feeling in regard to it. I have a great respect for experts, but there are some of us here at this table who have given attentlon to international} law for some time, and among the delegates here there are severil ca- pable of putting these resolutions in proper form. I belleve the first thing to aim at is simplicity of statement. The rules laid down by Mr. Root, especially in article I, are elementary. Any one who has read a textbook of international law knows them. I shall not attempt to add to the powerful sument presented by Mr. Root, who, though I say it in his presence, is one of the greatest international lawyers now living. As far as his arguments o, I will follow a historic British ex- ample and say ‘ditto to Mr. Burke. “What I should like to sce done by the conference is to decide on a policy—for this is a question of policy. We can easily take care of amendments suggested by Mr. Sal- mond. We are here to settle a poli and must do so. This policy has been presented and will not down. The world today wants an unequivocal declaration against the sinking of the Lusitania. I take the Lusitania as an example summing up the horrors of the submarine as it was used In the war with Germany. “I know the opinion of my country. The feeling aroused here as well as in Great Britain was intense. I want a declaration showing the represent- ative opinion in this matter and preventing, so far as we can, the use of submarines for the destruction of comai and against innocent non- ! combatants, women and children. We can at least erect a standard. After the Constitution of the United States wvas adopted by the constitutional onvention in 1787 George Washing- ton wrote to a friend: ‘We have erected standard to which the wise and good can repair. The rest is in the hands of God? I think we can erect a_standard here to which the civilized world can repair, in the natter of submarines. 1 believe the world will rally to it. What will be the alternative if we fail to reach this decision? We shall leave the door of uncertainty open—open to the type of man commanding the submarine which sank the Lusitania ——open to people who wish to wage war in that way; we shall give op- portunity to them to trample under foot the laws of nations relating to cls and leave matters in that most dangerous of conditions without any settled law upon the subject. But if, after lormulating it at (his table, wo declare in a most lcar and solemn manner that sub- marines must not sink merchant ves- sels with crews and passengers on board, I hope and pray we may adopt it and send it out to the world. The people of the United States desire this declaration to be made, and that the world may hear the voice of this conference speaking clearly against the continuance of the use of subma- rines for the destruction of merchant vessels and innocent lives, those of women, children and non-combat- ants.” At Dividing of Ways. Mr. Underwood said: want to takp a few minutes to express my hearty concurrence in the statement of my colleague, Mr. Root, in regard to this matter. I hope this resolution, controlling the unlawful use of submarines, with such amend- ments as may be necessary, may be passed before this conference ~ad- journs. I believe we have now reach- at this table the dividing of the 's as to what the conference wls for. Are we to proclaim that we are still tled to the dead body of the war that is past, or that the ed nations of the world desire tain and accomplish new ideals of pence; that we intend to put war behind and peace ahead? 1f we are only met here for a temporary armi- stice, If we are only temporarily tired of war, with our treasuries exhaust- ed; if we agreo to fly the white flag for a few years until we grow strong for war azain, let us adjourn now and let the horrors of the next war s cl to ati posal of my colleague. I feel it rep- resents great principles underlying the desire of the people of the world for peace, that lasting peace that shall banish war from the world. Sees Misunderstanding. Mr. Schanzer said: “May I be allowed to remark that a misunderstanding has arisen in this discussion which it is necessary to eliminate. “From some of the speeches that have been made here today by eminent orators it might seem as though there were opposition to the fundamental principles upon which Mr. Root’s pro- posals are based. “Now, each one of us has responsi- bilities toward the public opinion of the entire world, and we cannot even for one Instance allow that it should be thought that we are opposed to any measure tending to render war less inhumane. It was the Italian delegation which proposed the aboli- tion of polsonous gases, and was it not only yesterday that we declared our most implicit and unconditional sym- pathy for Mr. Root's proposals. Can there be any one who might suppose even for one instant that we do not share the sentiments of horror for the methods of war which brought about the criminal sinking of the Lusitania? “It is surely not the Italian delega- tion that one ocould reproach for any hesitation in supporting anything which can make us progress toward a higher civilization. Explains Position. “No country is more interested than Italy in putting an end to the abuses of submarine warfare. It Is, therefore, not the principle ftself which we have contested. I had only wished to sub- mit a few remarks on the wording of the text which has been put before us. That my observations were not useless is shown by the explanations which Mr. Root has been kind enough to give me and for which T thank him. I had asked to know in what way resolution 1I was 0 be understood, in respect to resolution I. In fact, the systems con- templated in the first and second reso- lutions _cannot co-exist at the same time. Resolution I declares an exist- ing law regarding submarine warfare, which admits, in certain cases and sub- ject to certain observances, even the destruction of merchant ships. Reso- lution II condemns in the most abso- lute way the use of submarines for the destruction of merchant ships. Mr. Root has now explaineg that resolu- tion II represents a new and subse- quent phase to which we must tend. 1 think that ought to be more clearly expressed in the wording of the reso- lution.” The Italian delegation does not insist on the proposal of submitting the whole discussion of the question to the study of a committee of jurists. 1f it is deemed preferable to continue to discuss it in this same committee, we have no difficulty in agreeing. As 1 have, already said, what we would ask is ‘that, pending also the arrival of our government's instructions, we examine the various sides of this pro- posal with the attention which the sub- ject requires, and only because we have the keen desires that the new regula- tions of international law which will come forth from this conference should be fully satisfactory to ail those who believe that the world can and must make further progress on the path of civilization.” The meeting then adjourned until the afternoon at 3:30 o'clock. Ninth Meeting Held. The ninth joint meeting of the com- mittee on the limitation of armament and the subcommittee on naval limi- tation was held this afternoon, De- cember 29, at 3:30 o'clock. The chairman (Mr. Hughes) said that the committee had before it the first resolution in regard to sub- marines. Mr. Root sald that he wished to make a few remarks following Sir John Salmond’s remarks of this morn- ing. He was in full agreement with his suggestion, and he had no idea of asking the adoption without the critical examination which carried with it _the result of such examina- tion. Mr. Root believed that the resolutions should go through the process sometimes described Ly par- liamentarics as “perfection by amend- ment.” Sir John Salmond had made a valuable suggestion which, em- bodied in a few words, could re- sult in the jmprovement and clari cation of the resolutions. It was this kind of thing which ought to be done and which he hoped would be done, whether it was done here by the members of the committee, speak- ing upon advice and experience of the experts, or by a drafting com mittee of experts was of little con- sequence . The great question was whether the committee would make such a declaration as this. In any case the process of destructive and constructive criticism should be gone through. Second Rending in Order. Mr. Balfour said that, as he under- stood Mr. Root’s proposal, it was, in British parliamentary language, to proceed to the second reading of the resolutions and then to send them to committee. This phaseology he under- stood was not used in this country and he did not know how far it was employed in the parliaments of the other states represented at this con- ference. Nevertheless, it clearly ex- pressed what Mr. Root proposed: that is to say, to put on record the agree- ment to the principle of the resolu- tions and_then to proceed to discuss them in detail. It was an admirable method and was, he believed, {he only way to escape from mixing up princi ples with details. So far as the second reading aspect was concerned, he belleved that the underlying princi- ple had already been informally ap- proved. Only the formal vote remain- ed to be registered. His own view, after listening to the powerful, per suasive and Impassioned speech of Mr. Root, was that the important words of the resolution were the fol lowing, at the bottom of the firs page: “To the end that ther may be a clear public understanding through= out the world of the standards of conduct by which the public opinion of the world is to pass judgment upon future belligerents.” Clear Understanding Desired. That was the central core of the doctrine which Mr. Root had formu- teach statesmen the lesson which isjlated. He valued these words partly that civilization may pro- gress again toward the ideal of permanent peace. If we are only met here to save dollars or francs or shillings for a few years we had bet- ter adjourn. “My country has never particularly prided itself on military expendi- tures. We have gone for many years at times without much armament, be- cause we did not fear our neighbors and because we could say in our hearts that we wanted to be at peace with the world. If we are here only to save dollars or other coins the great heart of the people of the world will be grievously disappointed. Un- less we can piant the flag of civili- | zation on a higher point—unless this conference move forward, then we will have made a failure. As for me, I should like to see in the future the great empire of Japan leading the far east as a nation of commerce and leader of high ideals rather than as a nation of great armaments; I should like to see a great Italy assured of the safety of the seas that carry the fuel necessary to her national life; I should like to see France secure in her territorial in- tegrity; 1 should like to see the day come when she may feel that her safety is_assured for all time and that she has no longer a need for a great army. I should like to see the day come when Great Britain need no longer fear any danger of attack on the food supply of her people; that commercial ships may safely enter her ports and bring the sup- plies necessary to her national life. These are the ideals toward which the conference should move, rather than toward the ideals of the horror and extended power of war. If we reject this resolution we shall be saying to the peoples of the world that we are declaring only a tempo- rary armistice and that we are going back to war. But if we are willing to take this one step—no matter how small—to make the seas safe for the peaceful ships of commerce to that extent we will have removed one of the frel.t causes of war—and the world will never be free from war until the causes of war are removed. I therefors heartily support-the pro- necessar; | because they removed a misconception and partly because they included a positive constructive proposal. The misconception was that we were oc- cupied in an attempt to formulate the full code of maritime law. If this were the case not only would it be necessary to weigh and scrutinize every word and every clause, but also to insure that nothing was omitted ‘which ought to be included. That, no doubt, would be a very useful task, but was not what the committee had been invited by Mr. Root to do. The positive and constructive side of Mr. Root's proposal was to secure a clear understanding of the standards of conduct which the public opinion of the world would apply to future belligerents. That was the object of the document, ghat was what it set out to accompfish. He thought that this end could best be achieved by transferring the words he had quoted from paragraph 2 of section 1 to the preamble, which would then read as follows: “The signatory powers, desiring to make more effective the rules adopted by civilized nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-com- batants at sea in time of war, invite the adherence of all other civilized powers to the following statement of established law, to the end that there may be a clear public understanding throughout the world of the standards of conduct by which the public opin- ion of the world is to pass judgment upon future belligerents.” Procedure Welcomed. ‘This was a mere matter of arrange- ment, but he thought it would help the world to see the great object which Mr. Root’s draft was intended to ac- complish. He therefore welcomed the procedure now proposed. The principles underlying this document had the warm approval of the British empire delega- tion. This delegation would have pre- ferred that the document itself should be rendered unnecessary by the abolition of submarines. Since they had not been able to carry out this policy, however, Mr. Root’s resolution provided them with an alternative. first line of defense, :‘hzz r mammwfn ¥ e If they could not hold had at g P in Mr. Root's document the abuse of submarines had been unsparingly dealt with. Every one must rccognize that when a weapon had been misused in the past, could be misused in the future and would be much more effective if S0 mis- used, no professions of morality or dec- larations of law could be relied upon to supply a sure protection agast this abuse. While all must regretfully admit this, he would like to assoctate himself with what Mr. Root had said ycsterday about the immense advantage of em- bodying the plain dictates of humanity in explicit terms. It was not sufficlent for them to be buried in works on international law or lost in departmental correspong ence; they must be proclaimed in e most public manner. He agreed with Mr. Root that, if so stated, they could not and would not be without effect on the conduct of mankind. To sup- pose that submarines would never again be abused in spite of all our professions _would no doubt be san- guine. But he believed that the adop- tlon of theso resolutions would be a great step toward the education of the world: and might do much to mitigate the horrors of war and its needless cruelties. Holding these views, he could only congratulate Mr. Root and promise his best support in :h;s objects which he sought to at- ain. - Favored by French. M. Sarraut said that already, on two occasions, the French delegation had joined with all its heart in the high spirit of humanity which had in- spired Mr. Root's resolution. It con- gratulated itself also on having heard the discussion which occurred this morning and which allowed all to grasp his thought more fully, espe- cially after the admirable comments which he had been good enough to make in his splendid speech. If there were still people who doubted the necessity to condemn the unmention- able abuscs committed nwainst hu- manity during the last oo (and no one there present doubted it) th uncertainty would have been carmed away by the convincing eloquence of their eminent colleague. Once more, M. Sarraut continued, he brought the full and complete ad- hesion of the French delegation to the sentiment expressed in the first motion of Mr. Root, the principles of which the Frénch delegation accepted formally. The French delegation did not want to stop with this adhesion to princi- ple, but wanted to see the resolution go into force by virtue of a definitive text, which would combine all the as- sents of the powers represented in the committee. Certain modifications had been pro- posed. He was perfectly convinced that Mr. Root, whose modesty equaled his great abuitly, would make no ob- jection to the suggested amendments 10 his text. As a matter of procedure and in order to reach prompt re- sults, it would be wise if each of those who had mzde obscervations re- garding the text of Mr. Root's resolu- tion, or had suggested modifications of details, would take the trouble to prepare and communicate the drafts which they proposed. These draf! could just as well he discussed and the committee would arrive in the end at a general text which would com- bine, he hoped, the unanimity of their acceptances, and would then be clothed with an_authority such that, if ever—and all his hope repelled this idea—war should again occur, the peoples would be bound by an agree- ment_ the moral force of which would be borne in upon their con- sciences. Influnece Seen. Mr. Balfour appeared to apprehend that certain countries might, in spite of everything, yield to the femtation to misuse the weapons remaining in their hands, For hie part he be- lieved that these peoples would re- flect deeply before violating such obiigations. If the committee had any doubt of this, if it could suppose that decisions such as those which were to be taken there would not be carried out, debate would not be worth while, and the committee would |nave but to leave this table. But Ir. Balfour himself had not enter- tained this pessimistic “conclusion since he had stated that a resolution invested with the moral force of this decision would impress itself on the attention of the world. One must] not deduce from the abuses commit-| ted by Germany the idea that inevita- | bly others would commit the same abuses. It was just because the conscience of all present had revolted against these abuses; it was because their consciences refused to accept the idea; it was because they were incapable of acting likewise that their alliance became spontaneously so strong against all those who had committed them. He firmly believed in the influence that these joint decisions mizht e ercise over the world. The time must come, as he had already stated, when | they must call upon the other nations | to ratify their conclusions by ap- probation. thus giving them a univer- sal and definite value. But it was precisely for that reason and with that object that the text which would be the outcome of their deliberations rengthened by their unznimous ap- proval, should, after mature con- sideration, take on an_emphatic and authoritative form which would im- pose itself upon the consent of the whole civilized world. \ Late War Practices Remembered. The chairman then asked whether t desired to continue the dis- cussion of the first resolution. The suggestion hud been made that this reolution be adopted in principle, with reference to a subcommittee for the purpose of considering verbal sug- gestions which should be in conform- ity with its obvious purpose. Be- fore that, however, there should be an opportunity for any destructive or constructive comments in the com- mittee that might be of use to the subcommittee. Mr. Sarraut said that if he under- stood the proceedings suggested it had now come to what in French parliamentary language was called ‘taising the matter under advisement": that was to say, keeping the resolu- tion before the committee, but refer- ring it for further cousideration to a subcommittee. The chairman said that that was his understanding of the proposal. Senator Schanzer said that the Ital- ian delegation declared that it agreed in principle with the first resolution provosed by Mr. Root. The chairman then said that the questicn before the committee was contined to the first resolution, de- claratory of the principles of inter- national law as it now exists. He asked to be permitted to add a single word, upon the adoption of this resolution in principle, subject to such verbal changes as might be thought. best by the drafting committee. This resolution represented, the chairman thoguht, a most emphatic condemna- of these abhorrent practices which had been indulged in during the late war. It would scem, indeed, extraor- dinary if this conference, unmindful of thees abhorrent practices which shocked the world and contributed more than anything else to the defeat of the imperial German.government should pass them unnoticed. and should deal only in a technical spirit with the matters connected with sub- marines. Points Emphasized. There was another reason which made the declaration opportune and necessary. The committee had had a long discussion in regard to the ques- tion of submarines, particularly as to the advisability of their continued use, their numbers and 2s to the practicability of their limitation. The committee had been unable to reach an agreement on this question. That was a fact confronting them. Such a declaration as the one proposed in the first resolution would go to the whole world as an indication that, while the committee could not agree on such limitation, there was no dis- agreement on_the question that sub- marines should never be used con- trary to the principles of law gov- erning war. The adoption of the resolution might, furthermore, avoid- misunder- standing on ‘the part of those who ‘were looking to the conference with great hope. It certainly could not be considered as a vain declaration after the experiences with subma- | and non-combatants. NEED OF CRYSTALLIZING PUBLIC OPINION URGED |People Expect Action Is View Taken—Sen- ator Underwood Warns That Parley Must Not Reach Dividing of the Ways. rines which the powers there repre- ] assent, which did not become a law sented had had and the feelings en- gendered by those experiences, to declare in the most concise terms that such a declaration would be of the greatest value. He believed that the rules of international law should be observed. He hoped that when the resolution was referred to the drafting committee it would not be overlaid with lawyers' niceties. There was, he knew, nothing which any one could write which could not be improved by lawyers, but when it came to the expi sion of vague fears, to which lawyers so like to give expression, he hoped that such verbal criticisms would receive seant attention. Anything genuine and di- rect which carried the real point the world would understand—such as the resolution proposed by Mr. Root. Another important point was that the powers, should a difference arise be- tween them, would have to remember that the weapons which they possessed were not to be used as in the past with- out reference to the laws of God and man. This would greatly detract from the value of a submarine fleet, for when nations counted their weapons they counted not only their number but the manner in which they could be used. Such a declaration would help the uni- versal endeavors of diplomatists, charg- ed with the conduct of affairs to settle difficulties without strife, and he hoped that the resolutfon would be agreed to with the understanding that, if it could be tmproved, it should be, but that the principle was recognized and adopted as_sound in substance. Unless thers was objection, therefore, he would put the first resolution in this form, 1. e that agreement was request- od in substance, with reference to a drafting committee (to consist of a member designated by each delegation) to consider the form of expression ard such verbsl changes as might be deem- ed advisable. Resolution Adoptde. The chairman, after announcing the assent of the American delegation to the first resoiution, &s amended by Mr. Balfour, put the question to tae other delegations, to which each assented in turn. The chalrman _therefors announced the unanimous adoption of the resoiu- tion and stated that he had asked Mr. Root to represent the Americ tion on the proposed committee and requested that tie other delegations hould appoint their representatives o that the matter couid be referred to that committee for consideration of forms of expression. The chairman then sald that the se- cond resolution would be considered in the form presented as follows: “The signatory powers recognize the pracitical impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating the requirements universally accepted by civilized nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants, and to the end that the prohibition of such use shall be universally ac- pted as a part of the law of na- tions they declare their assent to such prohibition and invite all other nations to adhere thereto.” As Mr. Root had explained, this was a proposition to change tie law. The first resolution attempted to state the law, the law which had been ignored and which had been trampicd under foot, but which nevertheiess had been and still was regarded as international law. This resolution fundamentally recognized, however, the practical impossibility of using submarines as commerce destroyers without violating the requirements universally accepted by civilized na- tions for the protection of neutrals He assumed the resolution to mean that, while the rules of war were as it was the sense of the powers there represented that they should be adhered to and clearly understood, the civilized world should be asked to outlaw the submarine as a weapon against com- merce. Question of Assent. The ‘point had been made that morning that there might be a ques- tion in regard to the assent of the powers here represented to the pro- hibition, that is in relation to the last words of the resoiution which pro- vided that the powers here repre- sented were to invite all other nations to adhere. He supposed that this meant that the prohibition would re- ceive the assent of the powers here represented, if they adopted this res- olution in the hope that it would be nde a part of international law upon the adherence of all the other powers —not that it would become binding upon the powers here represented, if it did not become a part of interna tional law, and if others by their re. fusal to assent prevented it from be- coming a general principle. He as- sumed that the intention of the reso- Intion was not that these powers should try to make international law for themselves, which, of course. they could mnot do, but that they should use their influence to obtain the ad- herence of nations to a new rule of law outlawing the submarine as a de- stroyer of commerce. Mr. Root said the chairman had cor- rectly stated the sense of the closig Words of the resolution; it was to the end that the prohibition of the use of submarine should be universally ac- cepted. Two things were done in the resolutions. First, a declaration was Imade, then an assertion. If a single nation were to lead with such a pro- posal it might have no effect. It re- quired universal assent to establish a law of nations. There was a dif- ference between the second and the first resolutions. The first was a declaration of existing law and cre- ated nothing, merely ,certifving to What existed. The second resolution called for an act which did not take effect until assent had been received. Suggestion From Balfour. Mr. Balfour said he would like to make a suggestion to Mr. Root. H understood Mr. Root's view to be that the powers represented on this com- mittee were only endeavoring to ini- tiate.a great reform of international law by declaring their own view and pledging themselves to induce other nations, if possible, to support it. He desired to ask whether he could not 2o a little farther. Why should not the five nations represented here agree between themselves to act on the rule which Mr. Root proposed? This suggestion was not inconsistent with Mr. Root's plan. On the con- trary, it would greatly promote it Nothing could be better as.an exam- ple than that the five states, instead of merely adopting a resolution which would be inoperative till gen- erally adopted, should adopt immedi- ately the principles which they de- sired eventually to see embodied in international law. He did not wish to dogmatize on the subject, but he wished to put the proposal before Mr. Root for his consideration. Mr. Root said that he would illus- trate. The United States h the prac- tice of amending the Constitution. The Constitution could be amended by a proposal of Congress and the assent of three-quarters of the states. One state voted, another, then another, then another—their votes were of no consequence whatever unless gnd un- til the necessary number had bten re- ceived—and only when the assent of the necessary number had been re- ceived .could they become effective. The committee could not make a rule of international law; all that they could do was to propose a law and in mmmn:lvmmmuumr e until the necessary number of assents had been received to make it a rule of law. He said that a great mass of nations agreeing might make Inter- national law, but the general rule that international law requires uni- versal acceptance. Agrees to Suggestion. He observed, speaking for himse and without any opportunity to coxn- sult the other members of the Amer- Ican delegation or without intendir to speak for them, that it would b entirely satisfactory as far as he w concerned to have such an addition this second prohibition as Mr. Balfol had suggested. It was an additic providing for the five powers W were here and who would be bound | by such a prohibition as between eac other, and he observed that he quite’ sure that every power at the conference intended to shape its ¢ duct in accordance with the rule pr posed. Such an 11d m for security, good ur ding. M Root said he did not suppose that such a course would in any de- gree chang he cond of any power Fere, but an assu of an intention as to that conduct would be of great g this disturbed and distracted world. Mr. Balfour Lad asked a question as to policy. Mr. Root did not want to take up their time t that, but it was a very common thing in the lez! lation of all of their countries to deal with objectionable practices by broad prohibitions, because broad and simple prohibitions could be enforced while complicated prohibitions filled with many items were exceedingly difficult to enforce. But he supposed a very broad prohibition like that we now live under he: was necessary in order to make a simple rule which would pre- vent people from doing thi in #n fonable way. In this c tried to make the prohibitions it would he impossible to enforce them, and so, it imposs: to have a {glass of w ) necessary to have broad prohibition to ent a lot of poor fellows from get- e e at dinner because it was pre tinz drunk on bad whisky. This was a proposal of the same ci cter as the proposal made by the British deleza- tion, which had not received favor; that is to say, the proj te ban ail submarines with a brosd prohibition based upon the fact that though sub- marines may have a useful purpose. inevertheless the painful purposes 10 which they might be put were so xeri- ons, and so injurious, that they jus: fied the establishment of a broad and simple prohibition of all submarines. 1b: If you undertook to deal with s iled. You couid could s wer rines in detail you f not make a_prohil enforced. There Iso great that the | to ban them alt {a propo: | ine upen is to say legitim: the injurious use of suhr substituted a general pr detailed prohibition. rule they had just reco. in thei tion upon ‘the first resolution, wisdom of which did not res: theory. It rested in their met the most painful events of recent time {When the German {torpedoins inr {and when they had the purpose of v i had begun to place bombs in and blow up vessels, indignani tests were made. ro- German Answer. The German ans impossible 1o cc had been ma of surface «! s. ment upon that. be impossible, and submarines could on warfare against m. summon the stop for vessel had r was that it w. And whe for visit a 1d not pu safety becau the subms b the work was done whi ftself was in a danser from could escape only by swift sub The submarine could not take boat load of pa: s merchant s {marines and left Germany’s ussertion possible for the submarine to war merchant ships in accordance with these rules was well four ' | government of the I'nit 14 10 it, agreed to i they said the « he rule failed, admit nee wa that such tare t more firm- 1 the te but must end. There was no fa Iy established than that tions that beset a bellige point at whatever cost would s tween the submarines and con with civilized procedure. | "The only way to sccure the of innocent passe and crews, non-combatants. women, children, ete.—the only to secure their safety was to that no hel- iligerent should attack a merchant ship through an instru nnot achieve the violating the rule. ple and forcible rulc the complicated and h wut eated a sim in the place of detailed rules 1t which were 1 by the we ness of human nature. Mr. Root said a foreible rule. Mr. Root said a forci ble rule, because a rule that could be understood by the people. He re peated again with regard to what he {had said before vegarding the first resolution, that he granted that con- tracts between nations would not e thu force themselves. He granted the rules made by diplomati ference and foreign offices, be enforced. But he als when a rule is ba ciples of humanity lic of all free countri of it. understood it. and adopted it a guide in its condict of belli overations. the public opinion of civilized countries would furnish ficient support of the rule | the condemnation of the publi of the world brings with it a condign pun ishment for any nation that offends a punishment that no nation dares to face. Two Propositions. The chairman said that there were two distinct propositions before the committee. The first, broadly stated. was an attempt to amend and improve existing international law in the sense that submarines should not be us=d at all as destroyers of commerce. Thete {might be some difficulty ia deternin- ing definitely when international ;s hixd actually been amended, hut he 1 lievea that some means ~ou!d prolabl be found of establishing a eriterion, as.for example by stating that the surcement should be effective cn the adherence of powers named. Ta2 other proposal, whicn had heen made by Mr. Balfour and accept>1 by Mr Root, was that, regardiess of the outecme of the first propoval, the five Pow ers represented on this ccmmittee should bind themselves, as among themselves, not” to use the submarine for the destruction of commerrc. Quite apart from any attempt the committee might desire to make to change international law, such a proposition was enilrely within the competency of the powers herc repre- - sented. So far as the American deles " gates were concerncd. there was no doubt as to the approval of the policy. It_was really a practical application (Continued on Fifth Page)