Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/656

 Some Questions of International Law. have thus far been quoted on this subject are, so far as we are aware, unanimously of the opinion that if either or both of the bel ligerents in this war have been guilty of de liberately sowing any portion of the high seas with floating mines, they have, to put it n'ildly, been guilty of a gross violation of the laws of civilized warfare and of International Law. The majority of these authorities seem to be of the opinion that this is the case whether the mines were anchored or inten tionally set adrift outside of the three mile limit. If neutrals were to suffer injury from mines which are accidentally adrift or which for May 20th; Indianapolis Journal for May 271)1; London Spectator and Saturday Nni's for May 28th; Army and Navy Journal for May 28th and June 4th; Scientific American for June 4th; Bradstreets for May 28th; Public Opinion for June 2d; ВегНцег Nachricht for May ijgth, and Die Woche for June 4th. "If these mines were deliberately floated into waters where they would be liable to endanger neutral ships, the act was undoubtedly inadmissable." Professor Moore in New York Times tor May 25th. "Mines, whether anchored or in tentionally set adrift in the Strait or Gulf of PeChi-li, beyond the coast sea limit, constitute an undiscriminating attack upon neutral and belli gerent alike, and are, therefore, illegitimate." Professor Woolsey in the New York Times of the same date. "The laying of mines in the open sea beyond the territorial waters would seem, not only inhuman. but a breach of International Law and prac tice. ... If it should prove true that the de struction of the Hatsuse was effected by a mine wilfully placed in the open sea, ten miles from land, the act appears to me one of wholesale murder, and its perpetrator hostis humant generis." Admiral Horsey in London and New York Times for May 24th. "It is certain that no international usage sanc tions the employment by one belligerent against another, of mines or other secret contrivances which would, without notice, render dangerous the navigation of the high seas." Professor Hol land in London and New York Times for May 25, 1904. "Every belligerent is free, I take it, to destroy his opponent's vessels in territorial waters or on the high seas by all customary means, including the use of mines. If, in an attempt to sink an enemy's ship, he accidentally destroys neutral property, there would be an unanswerable claim for damages done on the high seas. ... If, on the other hand, and I hesitate to believe it, mines are scattered broadcast in waterways outside ter ritorial limits, neutrals who suffered would have just cause to complain. Such conduct, if per-

60 1

have floated out into the open sea in conse quence of having been insecurely fastened in territorial waters, there would seem to be good ground for a claim to damages; if, on the other hand, it should be proved that the mines had been deliberately placed there, severe measures should be taken by neutral Powers. There can, of course, be no question, in the present state of license in the use of sub marine mines and torpedo boats1 and other highly destructive weapons of modern war fare but that states have a right to employ these devices in their own harbors and terri torial waters (as also in those of the enemy) within the three mile limit, provided that the life and property of neutrals and non-comba tants be not carelessly or wantonly jeopar dized.2 It is also probable that they have the sisted in, would afford ground for remonstrance, and. it might be, extreme measures." Sir John Macdonnell in London and New York Times for May 25th. "If a mine-Held was deliberately created out in the open ocean by the Russians, in such a posi tion that it was as likely to destroy a peaceful neutral as an enemy's warship, words fail to ex press the reprobation with which the act must be regarded. It is not only illegal, but cruel to the highest degree." Lawrence, War and Neu trality in the Far East, p. 107. The only discordant note which we have de tected in this general chorus of denunciation, at least on the part of British and American author ities, is that voiced by Admiral Sir Cyprian Bridge of the British Navy. See London and New York Times for May 3ist. Officers of the British Navy are said to be opposed to any limi tations upon the rights of naval warfare. Offi cials of our own War and Naval Departments do not seem to entertain such fears or prejudices. See New York Times for May 25th. 1 Count Mouravieff's proposal to "prohibit the use, in naval warfare, of submarine torpedo-boats or plungers, or other similar engines of destruc tion," and of "new explosives, or any powders more powerful than those now in use," did not meet with the approval of the majority of the States represented at The Hague Conference. See Holls, Peace Conference, p. 26 and pp. 94-95. This does not, however, affect neutral rights, as the New York Nation (May 20th) seems to think. 1 Neutrals using or approaching these ports or waters are entitled to notice or warning. Wheth er such notice or warning should be general or specific would probably depend upon circum stances.