SOME QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ARISING FROM THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR. VIII. The Rights and Privi eges of Belligerent Armed Vessels in Neutral Ports. BY AMOS S. HERSHEY, Associate Professor ol European History and Politics, Indiana University. NEXT to the questions relating to con traband, the most important issues raised during the present war from the standpoint of International Law have thus far1 been those connected with the rights and privileges of belligerent armed ships in neutral ports. One of these questions was raised almost at the very beginning of the war when the Russian gunboat Mandjnr remained in the neutral harbor of Shanghai where she was lying at the outbreak of hostilities) in defi ance of the orders which had been issued by the Chinese authorities, acting upon the representations of the Japanese consul, that she leave that port within twenty-four hours.2 Japan repeated her demands at Peking and is even said to have threatened a resort to force, but the conduct of the Chinese Government seems to have been extremely weak and vacillating. After prolonged ne gotiations and repeated agreements to dis arm on the part of the Russian authorities— agreements which do not appear to have been effectively carried out—the Mandjnr was finally disarmed and dismantled, and 'November 5, 1904. The reluctance of the Mandjur to leave Shang hai appears to have been due to the fact that a jarge Japanese cruiser was said to have been ly ing outside the harbor. Mr. De Lessar, the Rus sian minister at Peking, maintained, however, that the presence of the Mandjur in Shanghai was necessary for the protection of the Russian Con sulate there. This question derived additional importance from the fact that the neutrality of China had in a sense been guaranteed by the Powers. The solution of the problem was anxiously awaited by the whole world. See The Green Bag for June. 1904, for the second article of this series entitled, "The Hay Note and Chinese Neutrality."
the important parts of her machinery and armament were placed in the custody of the Chinese Government toward the end of March.3 Another case of the abuse of the hospi tality of neutral ports on the part of a Rus sian vessel arose in February. The Dmitri Donskoi, a cruiser belonging to the Russian Mediterranean fleet, obtained coal at Port Said on the plea that it was needed to enable her to steam to Cadiz on her return voyage to Russia. But the coal thus obtained for an innocent purpose was used in stopping and overhauling several neutral vessels in the vicinity of the Mediterranean entrance to the Suez Canal. "It is quite clear, says Lawrence* that the neutrality of Egypt was violated in a gross and open manner. It is an accepted rule that no proximate acts of war must take place in neutral waters, and they must not be used as a base of operations by either party." An Associated Press dispatch of Febru ary 20, 1904. stated that friendly communi cations between France and Japan had been exchanged with respect to the stay of the Russian Mediterranean squadron at Jibutil in French Somaliland—a stay which ex ceeded the twenty-four hours supposed to be prescribed by International Law. But the explanation of France for not ordering the Russian vessels to leave Jibutil within that period of time was said to have been entirely satisfactory to the Japanese Gov ernment. It appears that the French au 'On the case of the Mandjur, see the news papers from February iq to March 26, 1904. See especially an article in Collier's Weekly for April 9. 'H'ar and Neutrality, p. 116.
