mits;1 but inasmuch as the Mediterranean fleet was ordered back to the Baltic, it may be inferred that it was not permitted to take on a sufficient supply of coal at French ports to enable it to reach itts destination in the East. It is difficult, however, to see why the French Government should have been obliged to apologize to Japan for a violation of the twenty-four hour rule inasmuch as the observance of this rule can scarcely be said, strictly speaking, to form any part of the re quirements of International Law. The French Manifesto of Neutrality, moreover, makes no mention of a time limit after which the sanctuary of its harborage is forbidden to a belligerent vessel.2 England, on the other hand, has not only refused to supply Russian war and tran sport vessels with more coal than was neces sary to take them to their nearest home port," but, in accordance with the terms 1 See New York Independent for February 25, 1904. 2 At least so says the Saturday Rrt'ien.' ior February 27, 1904. This omission is all the more surprising from the fact that this rule was initiated by the French Government in 1861. See Walker, of. cit., p. 455. We have been unable to find the text of the French Proclamation of Neu trality. The Journal des Débats (weekly ed.), for Feb. 19, 1904. states that it is less precise than those of former occasions. 1 As in the cases of the Russian transport Azofi and the two torpedo boats at Port Said on
of her Neutrality Proclamation, she has in sisted upon the enforcement of the twentyfour-hour rule in all parts of the British Empire.4 The only serious charges of a violation of neutral duties on the part of a great Euro pean Power lie against- Germany, vis., the failure of the German Government to pre vent the sale to Russia of several trans atlantic steamers belonging to its Auxiliary Navy, and the exportation of a number of torpedo boats to Russian territory; but, in asmuch as these transactions raise some very difficult and delicate questions which are inseparably connected with a great his torical controversy, and inasmuch as the limits of this paper have about been reached, these charges must be reserved for our next paper. February loth. See the New York Times for February n, 1904. 4 As in the case of the Russian torpedo boats at Malta and Port Said. It is scarcely worth while to notice the charges against England of gross violations of neutrality which were made by the angry and ex cited Russian newspapers at the beginning of the war. So it was charged, e. g., that the Japan ese attack on Port Arthur had been made from Wei-hai-wei. a Chinese port leased by the British Government, and that two Japanese cruisers had sailed from Genoa under the British flag. For Lord Selbourne's clear and convincing refutation in the British Parliament of these and similar charges, see London Times (weekly ed.) for March 4, 1904.
A CASE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS. Вт JESSE S. REEVES, Of the Richmond, Indiana, Bar. A SCORE of years ago the Nestor of the Blue Grass bar was Judge Marsden. When he died, full of years and honors, peo ple came to Lexington from all over the State out of respect to his memory. "He was a true Kentuckian, sir,'1 was heard, "brought up according- to the best traditions of the Commonwealth." However, the judge was not a Kentuckian
by birth. "William Stackpole Marsden. B. A., 1823, Peconic Centre, Connecticut," was the entry in the small Yale catalogue for 1825. And in that year he was completing his course of study at the law school at Litchfield, that forerunner of the great law schools of today. At twenty-five years of age the world lay before him. Full of fiope and ambition he turned to the great West:
