Conclusion. It is evident that the commander in a region under martial law has a right to exercise such a measure of control of all inhabitants of the region, whether natives or foreigners, as military operations may require, and only that degree of force should be used which is necessary to accomplish the end of the war. This end can not be brought about more speedily by inflicting undue hardships on the innocent population; indeed, such action often prolongs hostilities.

In the case of Mr. B, the citizen of the United States, at a port of State X, which port is under martial law, it is proper, according to the position of the United States Government, that the ordinary processes of law should be hastened, because the existence of such a state of jurisdiction implies that ordinary court processes are not sufficiently effective to meet immediate exigencies.

Even though Mr. B is an alien in State X, the fact that he has been residing and doing business at the port renders him liable to the consequences of his sojourn in the time of war, provided the commander declaring martial law does not exceed his authority in the action toward Mr. B.

The seizure of Mr. B is an act which is within the field of proper authority of the commander enforcing martial law. The temporary imprisonment may be and often is necessary in the time of martial law. Imprisonment without trial, however, may be only for the period of absolute military necessity. Martial law does not imply the absence of justice in the treatment of the population which may be under it for the time being, but rather the acceleration of the course of justice. As deportation and imprisonment for a considerable time without trial would imply the absence or denial of proper procedure under generally recognized principles of international law, the commander of the United States war vessel would be justified in hearing the appeal of the citizen of the United States, Mr. B. He would be further justified in asking for Mr. B a fair trial by a military court or commission.

If the military exigencies make such a trial impracticable, the commander of the United States war vessel

MARTIAL LAW ACCELERATES JUSTICE.

25

would be justified in requesting that Mr. B be placed in his custody, in which case he would be under obligation. to see that Mr. B conducts himself in a proper manner with regard to the authorities controlling the port.

Such action would accord with the general principles of justice and would be according to the instructions of the Department of State in the cases in Hawaii in 1895, when the Secretary said

You are instructed to insist to the Hawaiian Government that the American citizens still imprisoned without charges and without trial shall be promptly tried or promptly released.

The fundamental fact in all cases where martial law is declared is that it does not establish arbitrary authority without regard to law in the commander of the region, but accelerates the course of justice so far as the military necessities at the time demand.

SITUATION III.

There is an insurrection in State X, during which the following situations arise:

(a) Certain insurgent troops are pursued by the regular troops of State X. The insurgent troops seek and are granted asylum in the legation of the United States. The minister of the United States becomes alarmed and asks the commander of a United States war vessel in the harbor to receive the insurgents on board his vessel in order to prevent bloodshed, which is imminent.

What should the commander do, and why?

(b) The insurgents seize the Robin, a United States merchant vessel in the harbor, and, promising to recompense the owners, sail away with the vessel. The owners of the Robin request the commander of the United States war vessel to recover the Robin in case he meets the vessel. The commander meets the Robin on the high sea. What, if anything, should the commander do?

(c) State X charters a United States merchant vessel to transport troops to the seat of the insurrection. When the vessel is about to land these troops it is captured by the insurgents. The captain of the United States merchant vessel appeals for assistance to the commander of a United States war vessel near by.

What action, if any, should he take?

Would he act otherwise if the troops of State X had been landed before the capture of the vessel?

(d) Mr. Smith, a citizen of the United States, is implicated in this insurrection in State X and is sent out of the country. Mr. Smith, as a passenger upon a vessel of State Y, subsequently enters a port of State X. He is thereupon arrested by the authorities of State X. He then appeals to the commander of a United States war vessel to obtain his release, stating that the action of the authorities of State X was illegal and unjustifiable. What action, if any, should the commander take?

SITUATION III, (a).

There is an insurrection in State X, during which the following situation arises:

(a) Certain insurgent troops are pursued by the regular troops of State X. The insurgent troops seek and

26

NAVAL REGULATIONS AND ASYLUM.

27

are granted asylum in the legation of the United States. The minister of the United States becomes alarmed and asks the commander of a United States war vessel in the harbor to receive the insurgents on board his vessel to prevent bloodshed which is imminent.

What should the commander do, and why?

SOLUTION.

The commander should reply to the minister that he has no authority to promise to receive or directly or indirectly to invite any refugees on board his vessel, and that he can only judge in regard to the propriety of the reception of any such person or persons when they appear at the vessel requesting asylum.

NOTES ON SITUATION III, (a).

Reception to bodies of men.-This situation again raises the question of interpretation of article 308 of the United States Naval Regulations of 1900, which was somewhat fully discussed under Situation II in 1902. This regulation is as follows:

The right of asylum for political refugees has no foundation in international law. In countries, however, where frequent insurrections occur, and constant instability of government exists, usage sanctions the granting of asylum; but even in the waters of such countries officers should refuse all applications for asylum, except when required by the interests of humanity in extreme or exceptional cases, such as the pursuit of a refugee by a mob. Officers must not directly or indirectly invite refugees to accept asylum.

In Situation II, of 1902, the question of the propriety of a promise of asylum in advance of the emergency was discussed and the propriety of such promise was denied.

The case now under consideration finds certain insurgent troops already granted refuge in the legation of the United States.

Cases of asylum.-The minister of the United States may claim some weight of precedent for his request in the case of the reception of various members of the defeated faction after the battle of Placillas, in Chile, in 1891. The telegram from the United States legation on September 7, 1891, states that a number of the supporters of the Government of Chile, "in order to save

their lives, which certainly would have been sacrificed, took refuge on board the German and United States ships of war." (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1891, p. 161.) Later refugees from the legation of the United States, and from the Spanish legation, were received on board a United States war ship, and were accompanied to the ship by ministers of the United States, Spain, and Italy. Brazil, 1894.-In 1894, on the suppression of the Brazilian insurrection, the leaders and some of the other insurgents were received on board a Portuguese man-of-war. Mr. Gresham, at that time Secretary of State, sent the following dispatch to Mr. Bayard:

No. 342.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 6, 1894.

SIR: You are doubtless aware that the night before the final collapse of the insurgent movement in the bay of Rio de Janeiro, da Gama, the insurgent leader, and some of his subordinate officials, were received on board a Portuguese man-of-war in the harbor. About two weeks ago the British ambassador here informed me that the Brazilian Government had demanded of Portugal the surrender of these men, and that the latter Government had offered to land them somewhere beyond the jurisdiction of Brazil, and there detain them until the fate of the insurrection should be known, when their right of asylum under the circumstances could be determined. Sir Julian was instructed, he said, by his Government to ask the United States to join Great Britain in a friendly suggestion to the Government of Brazil that it accept this offer of Portugal. I submitted the matter to the President and, after full consideration, he instructed me to inform Sir Julian that the United States did not feel inclined to join in the suggestion. A day or two later a substantially similar request was received from the Government of Italy, through Mr. Thompson, our minister at Rio, and answered in the same way, and within the last week a direct request to the same effect from the Portuguese Government, through its minister here, has been declined.

I am, etc.,

(U. S. Foreign Relations, 1894, p. 278.)

W. Q. GRESHAM.

Korea, 1895.-In Korea, in 1895, certain refugees sought the legation of the United States, and were received within it. At that time the United States representative at Seoul sent the following telegram to the Department of State:

OLNEY, Washington:

SEOUL, December 1, 1895.

Three days ago loyalists made a fruitless attempt to capture royal palace, in consequence of which usurpers are very bold, arresting and killing loyalists. I have 8 refugees. See my dispatch No. 159. No