538
vailed that Lord Wellesley announced that he would prohibit by military force the usual decoration on November fourth by the Orange Societies of William's statue in Dublin. This action naturally aroused the anger of the Orangemen. When, therefor-e, shortly afterwards, Lord Wellesley attended the theatre in state, the Orange fanatics were on hand in force to hoot his lordship. Dur ing the disturbance thereby created a bottle was thrown on the stage, and part of a child's rattle, pitched from the gallery, struck near the vice-regal box. The rioters were turned out, and Forbes and. other ringleaders were arrested. That the hooting was preconcerted was plain, and if Forbes and his companions had been punished as common rioters the af fair would have ended at once. But Wellesley and Pkinkett persuaded themselves of the
advisability of filing a criminal information against Forbes and ten other members of the Orange lodges who had taken a promi nent part in the disturbance, not only for riot and for intent to injure the lord-lieutenant, but for a preconcerted criminal conspiracy to effect such purposes—and this, too, after the grand jury had refused to find an indictment. The trial of the information was a ridiculous fizzle, utterly unworthy of the ability dis played in the prosecution. The testimony of a customs clerk and of another witness who was an applicant for government pa tronage, on which the prosecution relied to prove the intent to inflict personal injury, ut terly failed, and the remainder .of the evi dence was equally trivial and improbable. The jury disagreed and the prosecution was finally dropped.
SOME QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ARISING FROM THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR. IV. The Construction, Sale and Exportation by Neutral States and Individuals of War Ships, Submarine Boats, and Other Vessels Adapted to Warlike
Use and Intended for Belligerent Service.
BY AMOS S. HERSHEY, Associate Professor of European History and Politics, Indiana University. IN a previous paper ' reference was made to the fact that "the only serious charges of a violation of neutral duties on the part of a great European Power lie against Germany, vis., the failure of the German Government to prevent 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. These transactions," it was said, raise some very difficult and delicate questions which are in separably connected with a great historical controversy." These we shall now proceed to consider. •See THE GREEN BAG for July, 1904.
The charge has been freely circulated in the newspapers, and has even been made on the floor of the German Reichstag2 that the Russian Government has purchased several vessels (notably the Fust Bismarch of the Hamburg-American Line), belonging to a great German transatlantic line, whose ves sels are auxiliary cruisers of the German navy. In reply to the strictures of Herr "By Herr Bebel. the famous leader of the So cialists. See N. Y. Times for Apr. 15, 1904. For other reported sales see, e.g.. London Times (weekly ed.) for Apr. isth and May i^th. and N. Y. Times for May nth. It was also reported that Japan had bought eight steamers belonging to the North German Lloyd Co., but this report has been officially denied by the Japanese Govern ment.
