« ПретходнаНастави »
EIGHTH SERIES Į
No. 3822 October 6, 1917
BOM BEGINNING VOL. COXOV
CONTENTS 1. The Submarine Menace. By Hugh H.
L. Bellot . . . . . CONTEMPORARY Review 3 II. The Centenary of Jane Austen. By S.
P. B. Mais . . . . . FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW 10 III. Christina's Son. Book III. Chapter VI. By W. M. Letts. (To be continued)
. . . . IV. The Return of Religion. By the Very
Rev.Canon William Barry, D.D. NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER 24 V. Concerning Companionship. By Mrs. E.
Aria . . . . . . . FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW 36 VI. “The City of Dreams.” By Ganpat. (To
be concluded) . . . Blackwood's MAGAZINE 40 VII. Two Exiles . . . . MANCHESTER GUARDIAN 50 VIII. Labor and the War
. . . LONDON Post 52 IX. On Winning the War Outright. By
Thomas Seccombe . . . . . NEW WITNESS 54 X. An Exodus in America . . .
New STATESMAN 57 XI. V. A. D. .'
. . Punch 60 XII. The Autocracy of Germany .
. London Post 60
A PAGE OF VERSE. XIII. Pipes in Arras (April, 1917). By Neil Munro BLACKWOOD's MAGAZINE 2 XIV. Plum Blossoms. From the Chinese, A.D. 1700 . . . . 2 XV. Life and Death. By Carroll Carstairs . POETRY REVIEW 2
BOOKS AND AUTHORS · · · · · · · 63
PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY
6 BEACON STREET, BOSTON
TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION For Six DOLLARS, remitted directly to the Publishers, THE LIVING AGE will be punctually forwarded for a year, free of postage, to any part of the United States. To Canada the postage is 50 cents per annum.
Remittances should be made by bank draft or check, or by post-office or express money order if possible. If neither of these can be procured, the money should be sent in a registered letter. All postmasters are obliged to register letters when requested to do so. Drafts, checks, express and money orders should be made payable to the order of THE LIVING AGE Co.
Single Copies of THE LIVING AGE, 15 cents
PIPES IN ARRAS. Though France should be a desert,
While love and Spring remain, (April 1917.)
Men will come back to Arras,
And build and weave again."
So played the pipes in Arras
Their Gaelic symphony,
And eastward towards Cambrai
Roared the artillery. Champed into dust and sand,
Neil Munro. Came with the pipers' playing,
THE SUBMARINE MENACE.
As a weapon of naval warfare the submarine has come to stay, until superseded by a superior instrument of destruction. It only remains to determine whether its operations are to be restricted in any, and if so, in what respect, or whether it is to be invested with unlimited powers of offense and with exceptional privileges of immunity from attack. If the latter alternative be accepted, civilization will be confronted with the gravest ménace to its existence. It would mean, in the first place, that every State would endeavor to be as self-contained as possible. In so far as this contributed to the full development of each State's natural resources, such a policy would be advantageous. But the fullest possible development of a State's natural resources forms a mere fragment of its whole trade and commerce. Few States could carry on, much less prosper, without entry into the world's markets. The mere possibility of unrestricted submarine warfare would compel every State to produce and to manufacture many articles for which its natural resources were totally inadequate, and where such resources were lacking, to provide substitutes. This policy, in its turn, would necessitate the creation of tariff walls—the adoption of the fullblooded “New Protection.” For the consumer the inevitable sequence would be higher prices and inferior goods. For the producer, reduction in trade and less employment. For the State, reduced revenues and curtailed activities. To eke out a diminishing home trade the struggle for the control of trade routes would be renewed, and competition for exclusive spheres of influence in backward countries would be increased. As of old, international jealousies and in
trigues would result in war, or preparedness for war, and all alike would be involved in the crushing burden of militarism. It is urged, however, in some quarters that Great Powers with small navies or small maritime States will not willingly forego such a powerful commerce-destroyer as the submarine. It is urged, further, that even if by general assent its operations were curtailed, any rules limiting its use would be cast to the winds by a State fighting for its existence. The action of the Central Powers would appear to support both allegations. But it is too early to accept this as conclusive. The end is not yet determined. One after another neutrals are entering the field against them. Will the experience of Germany in creating a world-wide opposition encourage even a Great Power, much less a small maritime State, whatever its critical position, to adopt a similar practice? Not, I think, unless it succeeds. It appears unnecessary here to prove the illegality of the German practice. It is agreed that unrestricted submarine warfare is contrary to the laws and usages of war. But it is essential to refute the German doctrine that since it is impossible for a submarine to conform to the obligations imposed upon a surface warship if it is to be an effective weapon of offense, it is therefore to be released from such obligations. Because it is a new weapon for which no rules have been made, it should not, runs the argument, be bound by rules made for a different class of vessel. New rules must therefore be made in order that it may fulfil its mission in accordance with the law. The same claim was made for torpedo-boats in view of their vulnerability. The true answer was
given by Admiral Bourgois: “The tional usage are all united in agreeing advent of the torpedo, whatever its that under certain circumstances, such influence on naval matériel, has in no as the dangerous condition of the · way changed international treaties, prize, the possibility that if released
the laws of nations, or the moral laws it might give assistance or information which govern the world. It has not to the enemy, the inability to furnish a given the belligerent the right of life prize crew, the distance from a national and death over the peaceful citizens port of the captor, the lack of proof the enemy State or of neutral visions or water or the presence of States."
disease, the prize may be sold, ranWe are not here concerned with the somed,* retained and used as a tender use of forbidden weapons against to the captor's ship, or destroyed. combatants. There is no objection Thus, during the Anglo-American War to the use of submarines against of 1812, the United States instructed warships, but to its improper use their naval officer to destroy all against enemy non-combatants and prizes which could not safely be sent neutrals. If new rules are to be made, in. In the American Civil War, they must be based upon legal prin- Captain Semmes, of the Alabama, ciples. What, then, are the principles burned most of his captures, since the underlying the law of commerce de Confederate ports were blockaded stroying? By long-established usage and all neutral ports were closed to his merchantmen must submit to visit prizes. In the Russo-Japanese War, a and search,* and it is incumbent upon number of Japanese merchantmen a captor to bring in for adjudication were sunk by the Russians. Other his prize, whether enemy or neutral. illustrations might be given of this The reason for this rule rests upon the practice, but in no instance can the principle that the subject of even an exception be said to have been more enemy should not be deprived of his than an exception, much less to have property without due process of law. eaten up the rule. As Lord Stowell pointed out, justice But in case of destruction, a rule demands that acts of war shall be has, until the present war, obtained open to public review, and that universal acceptance from all civilized private property shall not be con nations and has been observed in verted without the sentence of a com practice, to the effect that the crew petent court. For this purpose the and passengers on board, if any, must property must be brought into the first be removed to a place of safety, country of the captors. f To this together with the ship's papers, SO general rule that a captured merchant that the necessary witnesses and vessel must be brought within the documents may be sent to a national jurisdiction of the captor's prize court port, when the validity of the capture for adjudication, there are certain and destruction may be determined exceptions. It will be more convenient by a Prize Court. This rule also finds to deal with these separately.
full recognition in the naval regulaThe destruction of an enemy mer- tions of all maritime Powers. To cite chantman wholly belligerent-ship, only one, by the Naval Regulations of cargo, crew, and passengers-forms the German Empire, before the dethe first exception. Juristic opinion, struction of a prize, a German communicipal regulations, and interna- mander must "ensure the safety of *This right was recognized as early as the
*Ransom is forbidden by the British Prize The Henrick and Maria, 4 Rob. 43.