Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/654

 Some Questions of International Law. to permit the use of their territory for mili tary purposes.1 The second question relates to the menace to neutral rights and the danger to the safety ot neutral persons and property which, it is feared, exists from the placing of sub marine mines in Eastern waters. In the latter part of May it was reported that the Russians at Port Arthur had sown the whole strait of Pe-chi-li with floating blockade mines. "Not -only have these dia bolical machines been placed off their own shores and in their own waters, but it is re ported that launches and junks have been sent out to drop mines at night or in fogs in international convention to exclude the vessels of correspondents for a time from any zone of sea in which important warlike operations were in process of development." "Each belligerent," he says, "should have a right to place an officer on board a newspaper steamer to act as censor of its messages, and the penalty for persistent obstruction and refusal to obey signals should be capture and confiscation." We do not see the necessity for such an extension of the rights of belligerents and encroachment upon the rights and privileges of neutrals. The phrase, "zone of warlike operations,'' is very vague, and the pen alty appears to us to be unduly severe. Why punish an act which is harmless and innocent in itself by means of a penalty which is usually re served for those engaging in unneutral service? 1 Lawrence (pp. cit., p. 200) also properly sug gests that neutral Powers ought to prevent the receipt of messages on their territory from a blockaded garrison, as in the case of the alleged Russian communication between Che-Foo and Port Arthur. He cites the refusal of the British authorities of a request by the United States for permission to land a cable at Hong Kong from Manilla during the Spanish-American War in 1898. on the ground that "to grant such facilities would be a breach of neutrality." But it may be well to call attention io the fact that this re fusal to permit the use of neutral territory for military purpose rests upon a well-established principle of International Law, and would not ap ply to the use of neutral cable stations by war correspondents. For useful or suggestive discussions or edi torials on "War Correspondents and Wireless Telegraphy." see especially Harper's ll'eckly for April 30, 1904; Army and .Voî'.v Journal for May 21: New York Times for April 16-19: London Times (weekly ed.) for April 22d; A. Maurice Low in The Forum for July-September, and Sir John Macdonnell in Xineteenth Century for July, 1904 See also Lawrence, ll'ar and Neutrality in the Far East, pp. 83-93 and pp. 199-202.

599

waters likely to be used by the Japanese war ships and transports. These mines have drifted into the high seas and Chinese waters where they constitute the gravest danger to neutral shipping."- It is feared by experts* that these mines may be a menace to the lives and property of neutrals for some time to> come, and that they may get out into the great ocean currents and drift into all or any portions of the Pacific Ocean. These charges against the Russians cannot be said to be fully proven, but there is cer tainly a strong presumption of carelessness m the laying of these mines or of negligence in controlling them after they were laid. It is true that our information is unofficial, but there appears to be sufficient evidence ef the existence of such mines in the open sea.* 2 Special cablegram to the London and New York Times, published on May 23, 1904. 'See, e. g., The Scientific American for June 4, 1904, and the Army and Xary Journal of the same date. ' The Haiinun claimed to have passed two of these mines within two miles of Wei-hai-Wei, i. e., nearly one hundred miles from Port Arthur, on May 22d. Twentyone similar mines are said to have been discov ered by vessels in various parts of the Gulf of Pe-chi-li and the Yellow Sea. The correspond ent of the London Express at Wei-hai-Wei esti mated in the latter part of May that there were some four hundred mines floating in or near the Gulf of Pe-Chi-li. The Japanese, judging from newspaper reports, seem to have been kept busy for some weeks in removing Russian mines from these waters, but the correspondent of the Chi cago Daily Xeu's reported the discovery of a freshly-painted contact mine in the Gulf of Liaolung as late as June 2oth. Insurance rates in London are said to have risen in consequence of the increased risks resulting from the fear of these mines. See New York Times for May 26, 1904. The Japanese battleship Hatsusc is generally supposed to have been blown up by such a mine on May 1 5th, at a distance of ten miles from Port Arthur, although it has also been suggested that this vessel may possibly have been destroyed by a Japanese mine or by a mine accidentally adrift. It has been pointed out that such a disaster might equally have happened to a neutral trading ves sel cruising in those waters. The Russian battle ship Petropoi'lovsk had been destroyed by a Japan ese mine on April I3th, but this occurred on the outer roadstead of Port Arthur, i. e., in territorial waters.