The question of the rights and privileges of belligerent armed ships in neutral ports came up in a very acute form in the month of August when a number of vessels be longing to the Russian Fleet at Port Arthur succeeded in escaping to various neutral ports on the Chinese coast after their de feat at the hands of the Japanese on August ID. The Russian torpedo boat destroyer Ryeshitclni, which had taken refuge in the Chinese port of Che-Foo, was seized and towed out of the harbor by several Japanese destroyers on the night of August 11, in spite of the fact that the Russian vessel was partially disabled and that she had been at least partly disarmed,1 in accordance with the demand of the Chinese Admiral at CheFoo. This was an undoubted violation of Chinese neutrality and of the law of nations on the part of Japan, the serious character of which has in nowise been weakened by
the specious grounds on which it has been defended. The Japanese are said to have attempted to justify their action on the ground that China had failed to enforce her neutrality over against Russia2 that the neutrality of China was plainly imperfect inasmuch as she was incapable of fulfilling her neutral obligations, and that, in the face of plain proofs of such incompetence, Japan was compelled to enforce her belligerent rights. It was also said that Japan did not intend to repeat the Mandjur farce, and that she could not afford to break up her fleet for the purpose of watching Chinese ports in which Russian vessels are abusing the privi leges of asylum and taking advantage of China's inability to enforce neutral rights.1 Without examining into the truth or se riousness of these charges, it is sufficient to observe that none of them, even if fully proven, would justify the violation of Chin ese territorial sovereignty. One interna tional wrong does not justify another, and there are other ways of obtaining redress for violations of neutrality, which are not too gross or serious, than that of an attack upon territorial sovereignty. As stated by Daniel Yebster, then (1841) Secretary of State, in the case of the Caroline* in order to excuse such an act as the violation of neutral territorial sovereignty, one must "show a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means
to go next, and the amount of coal he has at the moment in his bunkers. He will then be per mitted to take what is sufficient for the purpose declared to be in view, and no more." Lawrence, ¡i'tir and Neutrality, pp. 134-35. But, as Lawrence points out, experience has shown that this rule may be evaded as in the case of the Dimitri llonskoi. (See above.) He suggests (p. 136) that there be added to the rule "a clause to the effect that any coal obtained by means of them for cruising purposes, or for steaming to a different destination, unless in the event of chase by an enemy, shall disqualify both the vessel and her commander from receiving further supplies in any port of the same neutral during the same war." "This," he thinks, "would put an end to eva sions." It seems to us, however, that even this amendment would be insufficient. It would not prevent the Baltic Fleet from making use of neut ral ports to speed it on its destination to the Far East. Only such total prohibitions as are con 'Amongst the violations of Chinese neutrality tained in the Proclamation by the Governor of by Russia were enumerated the constant viola Malta would appear to be sufficient for this pur tions of the neutrality of Chinese territory be pose. tween the Great Wall and the Liao river. Russia's 'This was the case, at least, according to the disregard of the neutrality of the treaty-port of statements of the Russian commander and Ad Niu-Chwang, the sinking of a Chinese vessel miral Alexieff. But the fact of disarment was de named the Hipsang, and the use by Russian nied by the Japanese Navy Department. For the agents of the Chinese port of Che-Foo as a base official statements on both sides, see London of supplies and military operations during the Times (weekly ed.) for August 19. 1904. See also war. (It is claimed that Che-Foo has been used New York Times for August 15. The fact that the | by Russia as a wireless telegraphy station, and Kyeshitehti was partly disarmed was practically that Chinese junks have been using this port as a admitted by M. Takahira, the Japanese Minister base for the blockade of Port Arthur.) at Washington, in an interview published in the "See Tokio Correspondent to the London New York Tintes for August 28. 1904. -See also Tintfs (weekly ed.) for August 19, 1904. Count Cassini's interview in the New York Her 'See Wharton's Digest, I., §5oc. ald for August 19.
