Some Questions of International Law. case be compelled to take tor her own pro tection.1 The dispatch of Chinese troops to the ^Manchuria frontier is not necessarily a men ace to Russia, inasmuch as it may have for its object the perfectly legitimate one of protecting the neutral rights of China against possible or probable encroachment. Un the other hand the massing of such troops in this quarter in large numbers might, under cer tain circumstances, be regarded as menacing in its character. In no case could it be re garded as a direct violation of Chinese neu trality. The request that China use her influence to restrain the Chinese bandits in Manchuria as far as possible seems to be a perfectly proper one to make it itself, al though, to be sure, it would be absurd for Russia to claim that China can be held re sponsible for any degree or amount of law lessness' and violence on the part of any portion of the population in Manchuria, or for the attacks of Chinese bandits in that region. Dispatches from St. Petersburg further declare that Russia has demanded the dis missal of the Japanese military instructors with the Chinese army. Russia's protest on this head would seem to be eminently reas onable and proper and is said to have been tacitly app'roved by the United States Gov ernment. It is also said that Russia believes or sus pects that China has been giving secret aid to the Japanese fleets by allowing them to coal and re-victual in Chinese harbors. So far as our information extends, these charges have been very vague and non specific in their character and particular in stances have not been cited. If China has permitted any of her ports to be used as a constant and regular base of supplies, whether of coal or of provisions, to the Jap1 These representations are supposed to have been made in March of this year. In the absence of official documents, we have been forced to rely upon doubtful or possibly exaggerated newspaper reports.
379
anese fleet, she would undoubtedly render herself liable in damages for any injury which might result to Russia. The neutrality reg ulations of most States, particularly of the United States, are very stringent and explicit with regard to coal. Our Proclamation of Neutrality, issued by President Roosevelt on February eleventh, provides that "No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters within the jurisdiction of the United States to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without any sail power, to the nearest port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to re ceive, if dependent upon steam alone, and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer in the same or any other port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war or privateer shall, since last thus supplied, have entered a port of the Government to which she belongs. But it should be borne in mind that the peculiar or particular stringency of our own municipal decrees or regulations re garding our neutral obligations are by no means to be taken as a necessary measure or standard of what is permitted or forbidden by International Law.
- There have also been complaints on the
part of the Japanese of the sinking of a Jap anese coasting steamer near Tain Chin Island, presumably in Chinese waters, and there is said to have been considerable irrita tion in Japan over the inability of the Chinese Government to compel a Russian gunboat
