mation issued by France in the Spanish-American war in 1898 was the same as that issued in 1905; that the coaling had been done outside territorial waters; that the sojourn in the neighborhood of Nossi-Bé had not involved any violation of neutrality; that Indo-Chinese coasts have not served as a base of operations; that Japan had acted in the Philippines and Netherland Indies in a manner similar to that of Russia in Indo-Chinese waters; that the protest of Japan against France would be equally valid against Great Britain and the powers, and that in England Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour had expressed approval of the attitude taken by France.

A recent French view is as follows:

Il y a là, croyons-nous, une exagération critiquable au point de vue du Droit international et dangereuse au point de vue pratique. Depuis que la navigation à vapeur s'est substituée à la navigation à voiles, le charbon est devenu un agent nécessaire à la marche des navires; le fournir aux belligérants, ce n'est donc pas leur donner directement le moyen de combattre, mais celui de naviguer, et on ne comprend pas plus qu'on le leur refuse, qu'on ne leur refusait autrefois la toile dont ils avaient besoin pour réparer leur voilure. Sinon, la logique commanderait de défendre à un navire belligérant de se ravitailler en vivres, de ne pas réparer ses avaries de machine dans un port neutre, car cela aussi lui permet de continuer sa navigation tout comme une fourniture de charbon. L'État neutre ne peut faire lui-même cette fourniture, parce qu'il violerait sa neutralité en mettant à la disposition des belligérants les ressources de ses dépôts de charbon qui ne sont pas destinés à la vente, mais à son propre service militaire, et qu'il les détournerait ainsi de leur affectation normale pour en faire profiter des belligérants. Mais, nous l'avons vu, l'État n'a pas à empêcher les actes de commerce faits avec les belligérants par les particuliers: ceux-ci vendent leur charbon à un navire belligérant comme ils le vendraient à tout bâtiment national ou étranger. (Despagnet, Cours de droit international public, 3d ed., p. 812.)

General drift toward restriction.-The policy of restriction in furnishing coal and other supplies to a belligerent war vessel in a neutral port has been in the direction of limiting such supplies to those necessary for the immediate needs of navigation. While restrictions do not in general begin to appear until the period of the American civil war, since that time the policy has rapidly

spread. By the end of the nineteenth century in the Spanish-American war, the policy of restriction had become common. In the Russo-Japanese war it was very general. France was a marked instance of the lack of restriction on the supply of coal, though several other states made no restrictions.

The unrestricted supply of coal within a neutral port may lead to serious complications and may be greatly to the disadvantage of the neutral permitting the act. The belligerent thus supplied may use the coal in seeking out and making prize of vessels of the neutral which has permitted the supply to be taken in its ports. The belligerent may agree not to capture vessels belonging to the neutral which allows the coaling, but if it preys on the commerce of another neutral the case may be equally disadvantageous. There may be complications between the two neutrals in consequence.

The United States in June, 1905, took action upon the entrance of the Russian Admiral Enquist with his vessels into the port of Manila. Secretary Taft on June 5, 1905, sent instructions to Governor Wright at Manila as follows:

Advise Russian admiral that as his ships are suffering from damages due to battle, and our policy is to restrict all operations of belligerents in neutral ports, the President can not consent to any repairs unless the ships are interned at Manila until the close of hostilities. You are directed after notifying the Russian admiral in this conclusion, to turn over the execution of this order to Admiral Train, who has been advised accordingly, by the Secretary of the Navy.

On the following day the Government gave out the account of the matter.

The Secretary of War is in receipt of a cablegram from Governor Wright announcing that Secretary Taft's instructions of yesterday had been formally transmitted to the Russian admiral, and at the same time inquiry was made whether he would be required to put to sea within twenty-four hours after taking on coal and provisions sufficient to take them to the nearest port. That up to this time only enough coal and sufficient food supplies for use in harbor to last from day to day had been given, as they arrived in Manila with practically no coal or provisions. Governor Wright submitted the question as to whether they were

entitled to take on coal and provisions to carry them to the nearest port. Governor Wright was advised that the President directed that the twenty-four hours limit must be strictly enforced; that necessary supplies and coal must be taken on within that time, these instructions being consistent with those of June 5, stating that as the Russian admiral's ships were suffering from damages due to battle the American policy was to restrict all operations of belligerents at neutral ports-in other words, that time should not be given for repairs of damages suffered in battle.

De Lapradelle entitles an article in 1904 "La nouvelle thèse du refus de charbon aux belligérants dans les eaux neutres."

The proposition to limit the supply to the amount necessary to take the ship to the nearest port of her home country, which has been a form often used and was that approved by the Institute of International Law in 1898, leaves much to be desired. The nearest port may not be in the direction in which the vessel may be voyaging, or if it is it may not be a port suitable for the entrance of such a vessel. The gradual change in recent years has shown that this formula is not sufficient. Such words as the following have been added in certain proclamations: "Or to some nearer neutral destination," "or to some nearer named neutral destination," or that coal shall not be supplied to “a belligerent fleet proceeding either to the seat of war or to any position or positions on the line of route with the object of intercepting neutral ships on suspicion. of carrying contraband of war."

In most declarations there has been a provision against allowing a neutral port to become a base for equipping a belligerent's vessel with coal, oil, or other supplies. By "base," as thus used, is meant a place to which the vessel frequently returns. The idea of "frequent," as thus used, is generally covered by the prohibition against taking a new supply of coal from the same neutral port till after the expiration of a period of three months. Some states, however, allow such supply within three months provided permission is obtained from the proper authority.

It would seem to be evident that while the supplying of coal to a belligerent is not prohibited by international law though it has been prohibited in many proclamations, yet

the supplying of coal at such frequent intervals as would make the neutral port a base is generally regarded as prohibited by international law, as is practically admitted in the reply of France to Japan in 1905.

It seems to be the general opinion that the supply of fuel, etc., to belligerents should be somewhat restricted in neutral ports.

There are differences of opinion as to the extent of necessary restrictions. Doubtless there would be need of special restriction in special cases. Some degree of freedom should remain to the neutral in making provisions for special conditions. It would seem reasonable that the neutral should not afford a greater supply of coal or oil even for lubricating purposes than an amount sufficient to carry the vessel to the home port. The purpose is to guard against the furnishing of supplies for hostile uses and at the same time not to intern a vessel of a belligerent which may enter a neutral port. It would probably be desirable to restrict the supply of oil for purposes of fuel which would be included under the general head of fuel and for lubricating purposes which makes necessary specific mention of oil.

Considering opinions, precedents, practice and the aims of a regulation, the following seems a reasonable conclusion:

Conclusion. The supply of fuel or oil within a neutral port to vessels in belligerent service in no case shall exceed what is necessary to make the total amount on board sufficient to reach the nearest unblockaded port of the belligerent vessel's own state or some nearer named destination.

The supply may be subject to such other regulation as the neutral may deem expedient.

TOPIC V.

What regulations should be made in regard to mail and passenger vessels in time of war?

CONCLUSION.

(a) Neutral mail or passenger vessels, of regular lines established before and not in contemplation of the outbreak of hostilities, bound upon regular voyages and furnishing satisfactory government certification that they are mail or passenger vessels, and do not carry contraband, are exempt from interference except on ample grounds of suspicion of action not permitted to a neutral.

(b) Mail or passenger vessels of belligerents, of similar lines, upon regular voyages, plying to neutral ports, should be exempt from interference under such restrictions as will prevent their use for war purposes.

(c) Mail or passenger vessels, similarly plying between belligerent ports, may, under such restrictions as the belligerents may agree upon, be exempt from interference.

DISCUSSION AND NOTES.

Classes of mail and passenger vessels.-The mail and passenger vessels plying to and from a given belligerent port at the outbreak of war may be—

(1) Vessels of the belligerent state having jurisdiction over the port.

(2) Vessels of the opposing belligerent.

(3) Neutral vessels.

Vessels of allies would fall under those of the state to which they were allied.

(1) Over vessels of the first class, the state having jurisdiction over the port would have full authority within the limits of international and other agreements.

(2) To vessels of the opposing belligerent under present practice no special favor need be shown.

In the case of the Panama, in 1900—

It was argued in behalf of the claimant that, independently of her being a merchant vessel, she was exempt from capture by