Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/651

 596

The Green bag.

of violation of neutral or American rights had actually arisen.1 The Russian note to the Powers appears to have been provoked by the presence in the Yellow Sea and adjacent waters of a British war correspondent equipped with a De Forest wireless telegraph apparatus2 on board the Chinese dispatch boat Haimuit. This vessel, which is in the joint service of the London and New York Times and whicn flies the British flag, had been cruising about the Gulf of Pe-Chi-li and adjacent waters as near to Port Arthur as practicable and was sending its dispatches by means of wireless telegraphy to a neutral station at the British port of Wei-hai-Wei whence they were transmitted to London and thence to New York. The Times' correspondent declared that his messages, being in cipher, could not b • recorded either by Russian or Japanese instruments, that they all went to a neutral Crible office, that he had never been in Rus sian waters, and that all of his dispatches had been sent either in neutral waters or on the high seas.8 1 The Russian Foreign Office was notified, how ever, that "the United States reserves all the rights she may have under International Law in the event of any American citizen being affected." This notification did not involve a protest on the part of our Government against the Russian proclamation. The United States Government is said to have been the only one to reply to the Russian note, although this can, of course, not be a matter of definite knowledge. Russia ap pears to have given assurances to the British and American Governments that she did not contem plate any immediate action in respect to the exe cution of her threat. It is not definitely known whether the British Government has made any representations to Russia in regard to this mat ter, but Lord Lansdowne is reported to have ex pressed the opinion that the attitude of Russia is "unjustifiable and altogether absurd." See N. Y. Times tor April 22. 1004. Americans. 3 See his letter in the N. Y. Times for April 19. 1004. It is worth noting that the Japanese have also attempted to control, or at least influence the movements of the Haimun. In a communica tion printed in the N. Y. Times for May loth, the Times' correspondent says that 911 April i/th he
 * Several of the operators are said to have been

War is now regarded as an abnormal or exceptional relation between States, and the presumption, even in time of warfare, is al ways in favor of the laws of peace and there fore of the rights and privileges of neutrals in their peaceful relations with each other and with belligerents. "Unless proof to the contrary is shown, neutral States and their subjects are free to do in time of war be tween other States what they were free 10 do in time of universal peace."* If we apply this fundamental principle of the Law of Neutrality to the subject under discussion, it will at once be seen that not a ord can be said in favor of this absurd and monstrous innovation upon the rights of neutrals. The Russians appear to have de fended Admiral AlexiefTs order on the giound that "the correspondent on board the Haimun regularly transmitted to Che-Foo in telligence of all the outgoings and ingoings of the Russian fleet at Port Arthur" and that ''the information thus conveyed might obvi ously have been of the highest value to the Japanese."5 It also appears from Count Cassini's note that the fact that the use of received a communication from the British Min ister at Tokio to the effect that he was requested by the Japanese military authorities not to pro ceed north of the Che-Foo—Che-mul-po line un til further notice. He remarks that his position is, difficult in the extreme. He is threatened with capital punishment by one belligerent and warned off the high seas and neutral waters by the other. He chose, however, to submit to the wishes of Japan out of deference to former courtesies on the part of the Japanese. These restrictions on the movements of the Haimun appear subse quently to have been at least partially removed by Japan 4 Lawrence, Principles, p. 474. It is unneces sary to multiply references upon this general and fundamental principle of the Law of Neutrality, which may be regarded as fully established since the close of the eighteenth century. "Till then belligerents were, on the whole, more powerful than neutrals, and were able to carry on their wars with slight regard to the sanctity of neutral territory or the convenience of neutral com merce." Lawrence, p. 475. For the earlier prac tice and theory, see especially Hall. Pt. IV., c. 2. ' From the Xoroe I'remya, quoted in the N. Y. Times for June 8, 1904.