Page images
PDF
EPUB

consul at Nagasaki: 'Ascertain if Japanese Government will allow dock-yard company here to dock ships of our fleet during armistice. Answer soon as possible.'

"From an interview had with the vice-minister for foreign affairs it is clear that the Japanese Government are strongly convinced that, the present being an armistice and not definite peace, the relation of neutral and belligerent remains unchanged; and that therefore they could not without a breach of neutrality allow the docking of United States war vessels in a Japanese port.

"Mr. Harris was accordingly on the 24th ultimo answered by wire in the negative. He has since informed me that his telegram to me was sent in view of a telegram to him from Admiral Dewey requesting him to ascertain whether ships of the fleet could be docked at Nagasaki during the armistice, and desiring a speedy reply.

Mr. Buck, minister to Japan, to Mr. Day, Secretary of State, September 6, 1898, Moore's Digest, vol. vii, pp. 1085, 1086.

Effect of armistice.

September 21, 1898, after the conclusion of the general armistice between the United States and Spain, the Department of State instructed the embassy of the United States in London that it was desired to send the small light-draft gunboat Helena to China for river service, for which purpose she was expressly built, and that she would sail about October 1st, touching at Bermuda, Madeira, and Gibraltar. The embassy was instructed to ask permission for the vessel to visit Bermuda and Gibraltar and coal there, with the understanding that she "does not reinforce Asiatic Squadron for operations against Spain should hostilities be resumed."

The desired permission was granted by the British Government on the understanding expressed in the application.

Moore's Digest, vol. vii, p. 1086, For. Rel. 1898, 1005.

Effect of armistice.

By the protocol between the United States and Spain, concluded at Washington, August 12, 1898, hostilities were immediately suspended, and it was provided that commissioners should meet at Paris to treat of peace. Subsequently the U. S. S. Marietta, on visiting the Dutch port of Curaçao, in the West Indies, was, after a stay of forty-four hours, requested to depart. The American minister at The Hague was instructed to bring the matter to the attention of the Dutch Government and to inquire whether it regarded its neutrality proclamation as being strictly applicable during the existing truce and when the treaty of peace seemed to be on the eve of consummation. It was stated that other neutral powers had treated the armistice between the United States and Spain as a practical end of the war, and had admitted public ships of the United States freely to enter their ports for docking, taking on supplies, and for other purposes.

Moore's Digest, vol. vii, p. 1086; Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Newel, minister to the Netherlands, February 8, 1899.

DAMAGES OR STRESS OF WEATHER AS AFFECTING LENGTH OF STAY OF BELLIGERENT VESSEL IN NEUTRAL PORT-EXCEPTION AS TO VESSELS DEVOTED TO RELIGIOUS, SCIENTIFIC, OR PHILANTHROPIC PURPOSES.

A belligerent war-ship may not prolong its stay in a neutral port beyond the permissible time except on account of damage or stress of weather. It must depart as soon as the cause of the delay is at an end.

The regulations as to the question of the length of time which these vessels may remain in neutral ports, roadsteads, or waters, do not apply to war-ships devoted exclusively to religious, scientific, or philanthropic purposes.-Ilague Convention XIII, 1907, Article 14.

Refuge from the perils of the sea shall be granted to war-ships of belligerents only so long as the danger lasts.

Institute, 1898, p. 155.

But it is agreed-and article 14 of Convention XIII, enacts it— that belligerent men-of-war, except those exclusively for the time devoted to religious, scientific, or philanthropic purposes, must not prolong their stay in neutral ports and waters beyond the time permitted, except on account of damage or stress of weather.

Oppenheim, vol. 2, pp. 403-404.

Such vessel or vessels [of war of the United States sheltered in a neutral port] must conform to the regulations prescribed by the authorities of the neutral port with respect to tation of the stay of the vessel in port.

U. S. Naval War Code, Article 18.

[ocr errors]

**

** the limi

Article 14, Hague Convention XIII, 1907, is substantially identical with section 134, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

During the war between the United States and Spain an interesting question arose as to the U. S. S. Monocacy in China. By communications of the Tsung-li yamen to Mr. Denby, United States minister at Peking, of May 2 and May 9, 1898, official announcement was made that the yamen had telegraphed the viceroys, governors, and taotais-general of the Yangtze and maritime provinces to instruct their subordinates to observe the laws of neutrality. In the communication of the 9th of May it was stated that, in due observance of international law, vessels of war of the belligerents would not be allowed to "anchor in Chinese ports." In the proclamation of the taotai of Shanghai, issued May 22, 1898, it was more precisely declared that such vessels must not use Chinese-controlled waters and ports for anchorage or fighting purposes, or anchor there for lading war supplies; and that, should any such vessel enter a Chinese port, except under stress of weather or for necessary food or repairs, it must not remain over twenty-four hours. A question having arisen as to the applicability of these provisions to the Monocacy, an antiquated ship of war of light draft, which had,

because of her adaptation to river service, for years been kept in Chinese waters for the protection of American citizens, the Government of the United States maintained (1) that, as the circumstances of her long-continued employment and her unfitness for service at sea rendered it apparent that her presence was not connected with the war, she did not come within the operation of rules designed to prevent the use of neutral waters as a base of hostilities, and (2) that the existence of war between the United States and a third power could not deprive the former of the right to take the customary measures for the protection of its citizens in China.

Moore's Digest, vol. vii, p. 991; Mr. Day, Secretary of State, to Mr. Denby, minister to China, June 7, 1898; Proclamation and Decrees during th War with Spain, 18-20.

An incident of the early stages of the war between the United States and Spain suggests the need of an amplification of the rule by which a belligerent man-of-war is required, except in case of stress of weather or of need of provisions or repairs, to leave a neutral port within twenty-four hours after her arrival. On May 11, 1898, Ĉaptain Cotton, of the auxiliary cruiser Harvard, cabled from St. Pierre, Martinique, to the Secretary of the Navy that the Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Furor had touched during the afternoon at Fort de France, Martinique, and had afterwards left, destination unknown, and that the governor had ordered him not to sail within twenty-four hours from the time of the Furor's departure. At noon on the 12th of May Captain Cotton was informed by the captain of the port at St. Pierre that the Furor had about 8 a. m. again called at Fort de France and would leave about noon and that he might go to sea at 8 p. m.; but that if he did not do so he would be required to give the governor twenty-four hours' notice of his intention to leave the port. On the same day Captain Cotton received information which led him to telegraph to the Secretary of the Navy that he was closely observed and blockaded at St. Pierre by the Spanish fleet, and that the Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Terror was at Fort de France. Later Captain Cotton cabled that the Spanish consul protested against his stay at St. Pierre, and that he had requested permission to remain a week to make necessary repairs to machinery. Replying to these reports, the Secretary of the Navy telegraphed to Captain Cotton as follows: "Vigorously protest against being forced out of the port in the face of a superior blockading force, especially as you were detained previously in the port by the French authorities because Spanish men-of-war had sailed from another port. Also state that United States Government will bring the matter to the attention of the French Government. Urge the United States consul to protest vigorously." It proved to be unnecessary to take further action. Captain Cotton's request for time was granted. The governor showed no disposition to force him out of port, only requiring twenty-four hours' notice of an intention. to sail; and the dangers to which the Harvard seemed to be exposed soon disappeared. It may be observed, however, that as the enforcement, under circumstances such as were described, of the twentyfour hours' limit would constitute a negation of the admitted privilege of asylum it is not likely that it would be held to be applicable in such a situation.

Moores Digest, vol. vii, pp. 990, 991; Naval Operations of the War with
Spain, 383-389, 407-410.

LIMITATION AS TO NUMBER OF BELLIGERENT WAR-VESSELS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN

NEUTRAL PORT.

In the absence of special provisions to the contrary in the legislation of a neutral Power, the maximum number of war-ships belonging to a belligerent which may be in one of the ports or roadsteads of that Power simultaneously shall be three.-Hague Convention XIII, 1907, Article 15.

The stay of war-ships may be undue with regard to the number permitted in a neutral port at any one time or the length of the period during which they are allowed to remain. Fixed rules for these matters are comparatively modern. Neutral sovereignty involves a right of control, and of old each neutral dealt with them as occasions arose, the only limitation on its freedom of action being the elastic principle that it must not permit its ports and waters to be made into havens of rest or depots of supply for belligerent fleets. Sometimes a power declined to allow more than three war-ships of a foreign state to enter any of its ports at once in time of peace without special permission. At the Second Hague Conference this was taken as a rule applicable to times of war. But it reserved power to the neutral government to make special provisions to the contrary. Consequently nothing further has been done than to obtain general recognition of a normal standard, which is doubtless an advance on the old laxity, but does not amount to the enactment of a definite rule. Lawrence, p. 639.

* * *

*

** **

since a neutral must prevent belligerents from making his territory the base of military operations, he must not allow an unlimited number of men-of-war belonging to one of the belligerents to stay simultaneously in one of his ports.

Oppenheim, vol. 2, p. 418.

Vessels of war of the United States may take shelter during war in a neutral port, subject to the limitations that the authorities of the port may prescribe as to the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the port at any one time.

U. S. Naval War Code, 1900, Article 17.

Article 15, Hague Convention XIII, 1907, is substantially identical. with section 135, Austro-Hungarian Manual, 1913.

[blocks in formation]

REGULATIONS AS TO DEPARTURE FROM NEUTRAL PORT OF OPPOSING BELLIGERENT WAR-SHIPS.

When war-ships belonging to both belligerents are present simultaneously in a neutral port or roadstead, a period of not less than twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure of the ship belonging to one belligerent and the departure of the ship belonging to the other.

The order of departure is determined by the order of arrival, unless the ship which arrived first is so circumstanced that an extension of its stay is permissible.

A belligerent war-ship may not leave a neutral port or roadstead until twenty-four hours after the departure of a merchant-ship flying the flag of its adversary.-Hague Convention XIII, 1907, Article 16.

* ** * and when she [a vessel of either party] proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Treaty of Peace and Amity between the United States and Tripoli, June 4, 1805, Article X.

If we shall be at war with any Christian Power, and any of our vessels sail from the ports of the United States, no vessel belonging to the enemy shall follow until twenty-four hours after the departure of our vessels; and the same regulations shall be observed toward the American vessels sailing from our ports, be their enemies Moors or Christians.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, concluded between the United States and Morocco, September 16, 1836, Article XI.

If two enemy ships shall be ready to leave a neutral port simultaneously, the local authorities shall set a sufficient interval, twentyfour hours at least, between their sailings. The right of leaving first shall belong to the ship which entered first, or, if it does not want to use this right, to the other, on condition that the latter requests it of the local authorities, which shall give the permission if the adversary, duly advised, shall insist upon remaining. If, upon the departure of a belligerent ship, one or more enemy ships are signaled, the departing ship shall be warned and may be readmitted to the port, there to await the entrance or the disappearance of the others.

Institute, 1898, p. 155.

The government of the United States was warranted by the law and practice of nations, in the declarations made in 1793, of the rules of neutrality, which were particularly recognized as necessary to be

« PreviousContinue »