Either these mines were deliberately laid or set adrift on the high seas, or they were inse curely fastened in territorial waters and drifted from their anchorage out into the open sea,1 There appears to have been no official or semi-official denial of these charges on the part of the Russian Government, although they cannot be said to be fully established. Russians are said to justify such action on the ground that everything is permissable in war except those things which are specifi cally forbidden by convention or Interna tional Law.2 It has also been suggested that,
because of the immensely increased range of modern guns, it is necessary to enlarge the three mile limit for purposes of defence. It is argued that "if ships can now lie eight or ten miles away and yet reach the coast with their projectiles, the defenders have a perfect right to take such military measures as they choose within the range of the enemy's guns."3 In reply to the Russian argument that everything is permissable in war except those things specifically forbidden by International Law or Convention, it is sufficient to repeat that, as in the case of the proposal to prohibit or punish the use of wireless telegraphy on 1 It may be that the Japanese, too, are not wholly the high seas or of any other new and unau free from guilt in this matter of laying mines on the high seas or of negligence in securely fasten thorized interference with the rights of neu ing them in territorial waters: for it is known trals, the presumption should always be in fa that they have been laying mines for the Rus sian fleet at several points outside Port Arthur vor of neutral rights and privileges or of the (whether inside or outside the three-mile limit is laws of peace. In order to render such acts not clearly stated), some of which are said to have been improperly anchored and found adrift unlawful, it is not necessary that they be speci in April and May. See New York Times for fically forbidden: for their prima facie illeApril I7th and May 2oth. But it would be absurd to suppose that the Japanese would have filled I gality may be deduced from general and fun the Gulf of Pe-chi-li and adjacent waters with damental principles. The sea is the common mines to their own great danger and inconven ience. Indeed, they seem to have been put to no property and highway of all nations. It is small expense and effort in freeing these waters open to belligerents and neutrals alike; but. from these obstacles to the freedom of their movements. in ca^es in which there is a conflict of rights It appears that our State and Navy Depart or interests between the two, the presump ments have instituted an investigation in order to ascertain whether and to what extent it is true tion ought always to be in favor of that these mines constitute a menace to neutral neutrals. navigation. Our ministers at St. Petersburg and Tokio have been instructed to look into the mat All authorities on International Law4 who
ter, and our naval attaches arc supposed to be engaged in finding out what truth there is in these reports. This information, it is said, is to be placed in the hands of the General Naval Board, which is then to submit its views to the President, who will, if deemed advisable, make the proper representations to the belligerents. See New York. Sun for May 25. IQOJ "This is according to the St. Petersburg cor respondent of the London Express. See Chicago Tribune for May 25, 1904. It appears, however. that M. de Plehve. the late Russian Minister of the Interior, in an official communication issued privately, protested vigorously against the al leged action of the Japanese in laying floating mines in the roadstead of Port Arthur, on the ground that "the wholesale scattering of these engines of destruction at points where they may easily drift into the path of the marine commerce of the world, to the common danger, can in no wise be regarded as admissible." St. Petersburg
dispatch to the St. James Gazette, published in the New York Times for May 26, 1000. 3 St. Petersburg dispatch in Indianapolis Journal for May 27. 1004. 4 The following is a list, as complete as we have been able to make it, of those vtto are reported as having expressed opinions on this subject: Admiral Horsey. Sir William Walrond, M. P., Professor Moore of Columbia. Professor Woolscy of Yale. Professor T. E. Holland of Oxford. Dr. Arnold Jarvis, Sir John Macdonncll, Sir Fred erick Pollock, Bart, Rev. T. J. Lawrence, and M. Pillet of the University of Paris. See London and New York Times for May '24-28. 1904. For the opinion of M. Pillet, see the Army and ifm y Journal for June 4th. For useful editorials or newspaper discussions, see London and New York Times for May 24-31. 1904; New York Evening Post for May 24th. or New York Nation for May 26th: New York Sun
