500.A15a3/782
Mr. John Bassett Moore to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received March 12.]
Dear Mr. Cotton: Your letter of the 3d inst. has just reached me.74 I left New York on February 28th and have been traveling.
I have not read the Washington Submarine treaty since February 1923, and no copy of it is now at hand; but, speaking from memory, it is my impression that the proposed French substitute for Articles 1 and 2 may be taken to imply what those articles prescribe in detail. I therefore assume that France would not hold out against those articles, although she might desire some changes in specifications or in phraseology.
Article 3 I have never myself been able to regard as sound or as practicable. The word “piracy” has been and still is popularly and promiscuously used as an epithet to render odious things done on land as well as on the sea. Take, for instance, the phrase “literary piracy.” But, to assume to classify and to punish as piracy acts done by individuals under public authority is contrary to the elementary legal conception of the pirate as a person who cruises and commits acts [not] authorized by a recognized government. The article, in my opinion, is also incapable of just and effective execution, and, if its enforcement were attempted, would inevitably lead to reprisals.
The retention of the submarine as a commerce destroyer seems logically to exclude article 4. The distinctive advantage claimed for the submarine, as a fighting machine, is, I believe, that it is the most effective means of discharging torpedoes, especially at battleships. If there has been any proposal to abolish the use of torpedoes for offensive purposes, I have overlooked it.
Sincerely yours,