OCR Text |
Show SOME SEE II FATlL FLAW Willi Not Confined to American Right; Forbids Attacks on All Merchant Ships. E. International News Service. 'WASHINGTON, April 19. Congress is divided over the president 's unexpected unex-pected action. While many members approved his course and criticized only his ai'tioti in informing t-ongrcss after a-.u not counseling with it before the ui;iiic note was sent, there were others outspokenly opposed. Opposition to the president's course Ta$ due to his having placed emphasis not on violation of Amerii-an rights hut upon the rights of humanity in gen-er;;1; gen-er;;1; and to the feeling that his course m i eh t be construed as tin effort to make international law for belligerents. There seemed to be an opinion that the United States should not go to war upon the case as it "was presented to congress in the message and to Germany in the note delivered today.- Tt was stated tonight by one of the leaders of congress that a resolution probably will be introduced setting forth the firm conviction of congress that the United States is not justified in going to war with Germany over the submarine issue -as it stands at preseut. There was an apparent conflict in two paragraphs of the president 'b note that! was not cleared up tonight to the satisfaction satis-faction of members of congress. fn one paragraph the president said that the use of submarines for the destruction of enemy commerce is incompatible in-compatible with the principles of humanity, hu-manity, the rights of neutrals and the immunities of non-combatants. This was construed as indicating that the president took the position that German v should give up all submarine sub-marine warfare against other than enemy war vessels. In the next paragraph the president demanded an abandonment or present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight carrying vessels. The emphasis in this paragrapn was on ' present methods, ' ' It was agreed "by legal officials of the government as w'ell as by lawyers in congress that the United "States could only properly condemn such submarine warfare as is in violation of international inter-national law and neutral rights. The United States could not, it was urged, attempt to insist upon the abandonment abandon-ment of the use of submarines when their operations were confined within legal limits. "The state department explanation of t ins apparent discrepancy was 'that the United States was back at the same position it took in its first Lusitania note. In the note of May 13 the United Uitcs took the position that it was i m possible to make submarine warfare : unfui'm to the law. Tit is position was changed in the ---i-ond note when the state department ?aid: "The events of the past two months have clearly indicated that it is entirely entire-ly possible' and practicable to conduct submarine operations in substantial accord ac-cord with the accepted principles of regulated warfare.'' In the note delivered in Berlin today the United States went back to its first position. It held that the cumulative evidence given during" the submarine campaign nad shown that it is impossible impos-sible to conduct submarine warfare in accordance with the laws of nations and of humanity. Nevertheless there is not in the new note a demand for the cessation of all submarine warfare. Although there is ambiguity seen in the language international inter-national "law experts believe that the meaning is clear that the United i States is now demanding a discontinuance discontin-uance of present methods, which are found to be illegal. |