Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/593

 540

construction of four Lake submarine boats destined for service in the Japanese Navy in the present war.1 A stockholder of the Lake Submarine Torpedo Boat Company of Bridgeport, Conn., is reported to have stated, in April, that negotiations had been practically completed lor the sale of the sub marine topedo boat Protector to represen tatives of the Japanese Government, the Japanese agent having outbid the agent of the Russian Government.2 This torpedo boat is since supposed to have been shipped as cargo on board the Norwegian steamer Fortuna, bound nominally for Cork, but really for Japan;3 and a Russian newspaper (the Novoe Vrcmyd) has expressed the hope that the United States Government will make a detailed explanation of why the boat was allowed to leave the territory of the United States.4 These reports may be more or less want ing in accuracy and authenticity, but, assum ing that they are substantially correct, they may serve to give a foreground of life to our discussion as to whether the construction, sale, and exportation on the part of neutral States and individuals, of warships, torpedo boats, and other vessels adapted to warlike use and intended for belligerent service con stitute a violation of neutral obligations, and to what extent or under what circumstances a neutral State can be held responsible for such violation. It, of course, goes without saying, that the direct sale of a war vessel by a neutral State to either belligerent would be a gross breach of neutrality, for which ample redress or reparation by the injured State ought at once to be demanded,-and, if necessary, exacted. 'N. Y. Times for May n. 1904. 'Chicago Reoord-Herald for Aor. 28, 1904. An other stockholder has recently (June claimed that the Protector was sold to Russia. 3N. Y. Sun for June ю and 14, 1904. The Pro tector aopears finally to have turned up in Kron stadt, Russia. See N. Y. Times for July 8, 1904. Several other lake sub-marine boats are since re ported to have left the United States for Russia. 'Chicago Tribune for June 12, 1904.

Since the settlement of the famous "Ala bama Case1' by the Treaty of Washington in 1871, and the Geneva Award of 1872, there can scarcely be any more room for doubt but that the fitting out and departure from, as well as the arming and equipping5 in, a neutral port of a vessel intended for the use of either belligerent is a serious violation of neutrality, if knowingly permitted by a neu tral government. The First Rule of the Treaty of Washington declares that "a neu tral State is bound to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace, and also like dili gence to prevent the departure from its jur isdiction of any vessel intended to .cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use." * Although the principles incorporated into this rule have not won the unreserved ap proval of all English publicists.7 and have The arming and equipping of such a vessel, as also the augmentation of the force of a war vessel in a neutral port, had been prohibited by International Law. as well as the British and American Neutrality Acts, many years before. "For the Three Rules of the Treaty of Wash ington, see, e.g., Wharton's Dig. III., p. 630. V.jf., Hall (§225 and notes) and Lawrence (§§262 and 263). Hall, although he insists that this is not the law, was of the opinion tha.t such a usage is in course of growth. He seems more over to have looked upon, such a rule or usagr as healthy and desirable, if not based upon the doctrine of intent in place of which he suggests the alternative principle of the character of thc> vessel. Lawrence thinks "the question is still far from settlement." He says that "the old prin ciples have been thoroughly discredited and the maritime Powers have come to no agreement upon -new ones." That the First Rule of the Treaty of Washington is probably a rule of In ternational Law is admitted by Walker (Manual, §65) "provided a fair interpretation be accorded to the phrase 'due diligence.'" "The general consensus of opinions of publicists, with some dissent in England, is that they (the Three Rules of the Treaty of Washington) are a correct state ment of existing International Law." Foster, American Diplomacy, p. 429.