OCR Text |
Show REPRISALS. The German ajr attack on Hover and Folkestone has revived anions tue English Eng-lish the debate concerning reprisals. A few weeks ago the Germans sank an English hospital ship, whereupon the English government announced that there -would be reprisals if the Germans repeated the act. Another hospital ship was sunk and the British Brit-ish airmen bombarded Freiburg, killing kill-ing and injuring many. The theory, now proved fallacious, was that the reprisal -would deter the Teutons from further atrocities. The Archbishop of Canterbury and many other bishops protested to the house of lords. Lord MilnA- and Lord Curzon defended the air raid on the unfortified town of Freiburg as a just reprisal and a bitter controversy followed. fol-lowed. The latest to enter the' field a3 a re- prisalist is Hall Caine, whose logic we have occasionally found a good target for criticism. In this instance he spins a subtle argument, difficult to answer. He writes: The central argument of the Archbishop of Canterbury and fellow fel-low churchmen and others is that, however cowardly, inhuman, unchristian un-christian the enemy's acts, equally cowardly, inhuman and unchristian unchris-tian 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 un distinguish able from the law punishing the murderer. The act being the same, the difference dif-ference lies in the motives insnir-ing insnir-ing the deed, but the moral' difference dif-ference completely transfigures the act and in the eyes of civilized Christian men justifies civil law. 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 unfor-tified towns, killing innocent women and children? The answer is hard and bitter in view of the unmerited unmer-ited suffering it causes. The excuse ex-cuse depends upon the necessity i-r 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, sus-pended, "if he is a base, craty coward cow-ard always struggling to be beforehand be-forehand with acts of cruelty and barbarity it may be necessary, and. if necessary, it is right to restrain him by whatever means of punishment punish-ment lie within our power to inflict. in-flict. - Bnt when all is said and done, is not this the German argument of necessity? ne-cessity? If a nation's existence is at stake so runs the argument that a necessity which justifies anything. It justifies the invasion of Belgium, the slaying of ho?tage, the violation of women, the sinking of ships without warning, the poisoning of wells as in Wept Africa the mutilation of the wounded, anything and everything that may force or intimidate the enemy to sue for peace. Hall Caine declares later in his article ar-ticle that all war is in the nature of reprisal. He declares that the fate of the non-combatants, women and chil-dren, chil-dren, has always been in the hands of the combatants and he adds: "In the absence of Ifiw to punish wrong -all nerpecit v is right. ' ' A distinction should be dawn between be-tween nereei'y a nr something which the individual or a few individuals may set up as necessity. The law piv?3 a man a right to defend his life even if he must kill the one who attempt-to attempt-to take his lifp. ft does not give him the right to kill the assailant's mother or sister. But, Hall Caine will say, you are killing brother? and fathers on the fi'dd of hattle every day and you justify jus-tify the a"t on the plea of' necessity. The v. eak'nss of the argument lies in const ituting nri-oseity as the moral bas i s f o r eve ry act of w a r. 'o one woull justify an individual who yio lap-d the woriipji of a family whirl vcas conducting a vendetta against him and his family. r- would not be justified because tb.? nrt is wrong. And from the viewpoint of necessity ,p v.-ould not he justified hpc-u'-e no necessity existed. Tt was not an act of -det'en-e. He set himself up as the arbiter to decide what was e ,-i'y and what was not. Ne e-sity dn'? not make right oven when there i? no established court. Only th.p moral law establishes mora 1 right . But, ;'-s. If,-:!? ''airv, tj,Hrn jj, a difference dif-ference between 1 he criminal and the righ 1 eons man. The ri gli' eon.- man is; jns-tified jns-tified in making reprisals; the criminal is not. T h i .-, too. is an argument b a I" -flingin its subtility, but if we apply the rale for the individual we will see that it is not a perfect argument. If a man enters your yard to steal a turnip you have no right to kill him, for you cannot weigh a turnip against a man's life. Even if he enters your house to steal your money you will hardly be justified in killing him merely on account of the theft. Only in case your life is threatened will you be justified. And your justification will ! be 'self-defense. But, Mr. Caine will say, all war is self-defense. That is by no meaus true. Only some acts of war are, genuine self-defense. self-defense. If your opponent uses poison gas or liquid fire you have a right to use poison gas or liquid fire against him, but you have no right to burn him at the stake after you have captured him, for that would not be self-defense. Xor would you have a right to burn his mother or his sister at the stake on any plea. How then would the English be able to defend themselves against repeated air raids on defenseless cities? Would it not be necessary to make air raids on defenseless German cities? The failure of the attack on Freiburg to deter the Germans shows the folly of this form of reprisal. The only way to stop the air raids on English towns is to arm properly for defense and to fight only the combatants. That was the way the English met and conquered con-quered the Zeppelin. That is the way they can meet and conquer the air-plane. air-plane. We go into the war to make reprisal, it is true; but we are not going in to wage war on defenseless women and children. We shall fight only the armed men and ships, for we shall fight only in soli-defense. |