Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/430

 Some Questions of International Law. a landing of Japanese troops on its coast would constitute a violation of Chinese neu trality for which China would be held re sponsible. A great outcry was raised by the Ameri can Press in consequence of the proclama tion of martial law at Niu-Chwang on March twenty-seventh. This outcry was probably aggravated by the indiscreet action of the Russian police authorities in ordering some American (and British) flags on certain pri vate buildings at Niu-Chwang to be hauled clown. The Russian authorities seem to have been clearly within their rights in this mat ter, but they wisely apologized for this ac tion and the flags were restored to their former places upon the representations of the American consul.1 It was also reported that the foreign consuls at Xiu-Chwang were notified that they were no longer to exer cise consular jurisdiction and consular func tions, especially those of extra-territorial jurisdiction, but this report does not seem to have been confirmed. It seems that cer tain of their functions, especially those com prehended under the term "extra-territoriality" were merely suspended, and that the foreign consuls are still permitted to exer cise such of their duties as are compatible with the execution of martial law. We do not recall that it has been customary to de prive consuls of their ordinary duties in time of war, but it could hardly be expected that they should be permitted to perform such service as would be inconsistent with the operation of military law. In declaring martial law at Niu-Chwang, as also in occupying the region west oí the Liao river with troops, Russia was clearly acting within her rights and was guilty of no violation of neutral rights or of the neutral ity of China. This region forms a part of 1 There seems to have been no protest at Washington. Of course if the flag had been re moved from the official residence of the consul, the case would have been different. A prompt and ample apology would have been necessary.

Manchuria which was at least impliedlv excepted from the application of the Hay Note, and has been practically in the possession or under the control of Russia since 1900. When Russia chose to "re-occupy" this re gion with troops and to declare martial law in the early part of the present struggle, all doubts as to its neutrality vanished and it became a part of the field of possible military operations for Japan as well as for Russia; for it would be absurd for Russia to make belligerent use of this territory while claim ing any part of it as neutral in respect to japan.2 In conclusion, it may said that at the pres ent date of writing,3 there have been no serious or well-authenticated cases of the violation of Chinese neutrality, whether on the part of either belligerent or of China her self, which would necessitate the intervention of the Powers or would justify either belli gerent in attacking China. Even if such vio lations have occurred or should occur on the part of China, they ought to be treated with great leniency, especially by Russia, on ac count of the serious difficulties of China's position and because of her military and administrative weakness. For this weakness and these difficulties Russia is in large meas ure responsible. Any violation of Chinese neutrality on the part of either belligerent, short of actual invasion of Chinese territory, should be settled by diplomacy or arbitra tion.* respect to the sea-coast. 3 May 4, 1904. 4 Since the above was written Niu-Chwang appears to. have been practically abandoned by the Russians, although it does not, at the pres ent date of writing (May 20. 1904!, seem as yet to have been occupied by Japanese troops. It will be interesting to notice the policy which the Japanese shall adopt in respect to the neutrality of Niu-Chwang and the region west of the Liao river. A curious and interesting story has come via London from Peking to the effect that the Rus sian ministers at Söul and Peking have been try ing to induce China to "take over" Niu-Chwang.
 * Russia seems to have made such claims in