Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/508

 Some Questions of International Law. it also prohibits "the fitting out and arming oí any ship or vessel with intent that such ship or vessel shall be employed in the ser vice of either belligerent," as also the "in creasing or augmenting of the force of any ship of war, cruiser, or armed vessel in the service of either of the said belligerents." For the same reasons it also prohibits the preparing or setting on foot of any military expedition or enterprise against the terri tory of either belligerent, and it forbids the use of our ports or territorial waters for any military purpose. It also directs the en forcement of the two twenty-four rules, viz.. the rule requiring that vessels belonging to either belligerent and entering a neutral port during the war be required to leave within twenty-four hours after their arrival except in case of necessity, and the rule which provides that an interval of at least twenty-four hours must elapse between the departure from a neutral port of vessels be longing to opposing belligerents. These rules are now so generally observed by neu tral States that they are in all probability in process of becoming a part of the law or practice of nations, if, indeed, they do not already deserve that description. The same may be said of two other requirements, like wise inserted in the President's proclama tion and now generally observed by the practice of nations, to the effect that ships of war belonging to either belligerent shall only be permitted to take in a supply of coal at any of our ports sufficient to take them to the nearest home port, and that the same vessel, after having once been fur nished with coal, shall not receive another supply at any of our ports within three months,1 unless she shall in the meantime 1 It is perhaps too much to say that these are rules of International Law at the present time, but they are undoubtedly in process of rapidly becoming so. They have been incorpor ated into most of the recent Neutrality Procla mations, at least in those of the United States, Great Britain and France. It seems always to

457

have entered a port of the government to which she belongs. In a subsequent executive order, issued on March tenth, President Roosevelt warned all officials of the Government, whether civil, naval, or military, not only to observe all obligations of neutrality during the present war between Japan and Russia, but "also to abstain from either action or speech which can legitimately cause irrita tion to either of the combatants." This proclamation is said to have produced a good effect in Russia and to have somewhat al layed the feelings of irritation of the Russian Government and people against the United States. Although doubtless an act of wis dom and discretion on the part of our Presi dent, this additional proclamation was not necessary from the point of view of our international obligations, and it can hardly be said to be binding upon the majority of those to whom it is addressed. If the United States seems to have a clear record in the matter of the faithful observ ance of her neutral duties in this war, the same may be said of England and France. The Governments of both of these States appear to have performed their neutral obli gations under somewhat difficult circumstan ces in an admirable spirit of fairness and impartiality. France is said to have made an elaborate apology to the Japanese Government for having allowed the small Russian Mediter ranean fleet to remain at Jibutil, a port in French Somaliland, for a longer period of time than the twenty-four hour rule perbe assumed in current discussions that these rules are part and parcel of International Law. Where modern Governments as well as the general miblic are willing to take such advanced ground, it would seem to be unbecoming for publicists to lag too far behind. This is especially true of the rules limiting the supply of coal in neutral ports. In view of the supreme importance of coal under conditions of modern naval warfare, there can scarcely be any question but that only a very limited supoly should be furnished to belligerent vessels at neutral ports.