Harbor Obstructions and Submarine Explosives. in the premises, to protect American com merce, Mr. Young said, in speaking of the subject: " That China relied upon the treaty of 1858 on her right to do so," but further said: " Since 1858 the methods of offensive and defensive warfare have been revolution ized. The United States, during the rebellion, saw fit to obstruct the channels of Charles ton harbor by sinking ships laden with stone to secure an effective blockade. Germany, during her latest war with France, protected her Baltic ports with torpedoes. I should have felt some embarrassment in seeking to persuade the Yamen that what Germany and the United States regarded as honorable warfare could not be permitted to China." To this letter Mr. Frelinghuysen sent a reply on April 18, 1884, in which he said "That it could only be tolerated as a tem porary measure to be removed as soon as the special occasion therefor shall have passed." But the whole question was more thor oughly reviewed by Mr. Bayard in 1886, in a letter to Minister Denby in relation to the removal of obstructions from the same river in which he called attention to the above correspondence, and said, " That when war ceases, obstructions impeding navigation must be removed by the territorial author ities." This was done when the Dutch attacked Spain in the time of Philip II., and by Eng land in the time of Charles II., when block aded by the Dutch; by this country during the revolution, war of 181 2, and the late civil war; by Russia at the siege of Sebastopol, and by Germany as above; but when there is no necessity, that is, when the opposing power has no navy, it is a ques tion whether under the law of nations it can be done. The placing of torpedoes in the Danube by the Turks in 1877 caused a letter to be sent by Mr. Evarts to the Russian Chancellor, Mr. Shishkin, in which he said, speaking of this method of warfare: " The employment
139
of torpedoes is so recent a belligerent device that it is believed the Powers as yet have had no opportunity to consider the general regulations, if any, to which they should be subjected," and that is exactly the status of affairs to govern the Maine case provided she was destroyed by a Spanish mine in the harbor through no overt act of that Govern ment or an accidental discharge of the mine. In the absence of any rule of law adopted by the Powers of the civilized world, the territorial nation could not be held respon sible in such a case. But the question naturally arises, if a blockade and obstructions can only be placed after due notification, then, a fortiori, how necessary it becomes to give notice to neutrals of the existence of mines, torpe does, and other explosives generally, while not specifying their localities. That would be civilized warfare, all other barbarous. Surprise of an enemy may be a necessity to justify bombardment, otherwise civilized warfare demands notice, and Calvo, vol. 2, page 137, says, "That the bombardment of an unfortified town is not permitted by the law of nations, except when obstructions arc placed to prevent entrance." Honorable Henry Stanberry, attorney general in 1866, in writing about the bombardment of Val paraiso, an unfortified place, by the Span iards, held that American residents who suffered thereby could not recover. He was placed in this position because of a prec edent established by this government, who claimed immunity from damages to French residents who were injured by the bombard ment of Graytown, Nicaragua, by the United States sloop-of-war Cyane in 1854. This place was also unfortified. Both cases were decided on the principle "that a foreigner who resides in the country' of a belligerent can claim no indemnity for losses occasioned by acts of war," which was a principle also recognized by England, some of whose subjects were injured during the Franco-Prussian war, and upon which we have also refused
