he could to save the men. The United States Government, however, complained that he ought to have handed over all the saved to the victor. The British Government was unable to agree. The matter went no further.

This topic was discussed at the first Peace Conference, but opinions were so divergent that no rule was adopted. More success was attained in 1907. By Convention X (The Geneva Convention and maritime warfare') an agreement was made concerning wounded, sick, or shipwrecked combatants, which may be roughly summarised as follows:-(I) A belligerent war-ship may demand their surrender* from hospital-ships and private vessels of all nationalities (Art. 12). (II) They must abstain or be prevented from rendering further service during the war in the following cases, (i) when received on board a neutral war-ship (Art. 13), (ii) when landed by their enemy at one of their own ports (Art. 14), and (iii) when landed [by a belligerent] at a neutral port (Art. 15).

6

We can now see how it came about in this war that sailors sheltering in neutral countries were at one time interned and at another let go free. After the German armed liner Cap Trafalgar' was sunk by the British armed liner 'Carmania' on Sept. 14 last, her crew were landed in Argentina by one of her colliers; they were interned under Art. 15. Some of the men of our own navy, however, who were landed in Holland after their ship was torpedoed on Sept. 22 were released unconditionally. This is because they were rescued and brought on to neutral soil by fishing vessels. It will be seen that Art. 13 provides for the internment of those only who have been rescued by war-ships. It might, indeed, be thought that, as Art. 15 does not itself contain the words inserted above-by a belligerent' the men should have been interned because they were landed at a neutral port.' But it appears from a Report of the Committee which drafted the Convention that the Art. was meant to apply only to men landed by a belligerent; and such an ancillary

* Great Britain made a reservation that she understands this to apply only to combatants rescued during or after a naval engagement in which they have taken part; not, e.g., to men rescued after shipwreck caused by storm or a casual mine.

document has an authority in continental jurisprudence which is not known in the interpretation of a British statute. The men were, therefore, released because, though landed at a neutral port, they were not landed by a belligerent. If the technical reason of their release were explained to them, they would doubtless marvel as well as rejoice-especially as, under Art. 12, an enemy cruiser could have required their surrender to him by the rescuing fishing-vessels. The same rules have been applied to combatant aviators who have been rescued from the sea. In one case, Commander Hewlett who fell into the sea and was picked up by a neutral fishingboat was allowed to return to England; in another, Flight-Lieutenant Murray, having in a similar predicament been picked up by a neutral war-vessel, was

interned.

Supplies from neutral ports for belligerent war-vessels.A neutral may grant other facilities than asylum to a belligerent war-vessel which enters its ports. Whatever the visitor needs in order to continue its active life as a vessel, as distinguished from a war-vessel-fuel, victuals, men, repairs-may be supplied in the neutral port without any breach of neutrality. Limits must, however, be observed; for it is obviously inconsistent with neutrality that such assistance should be rendered in the port as would make it a base of operations for the ship. The difficulty is to draw the line. This topic was discussed at the second Hague Peace Conference, and certain articles were agreed on which turn into general law rules previously enforced by this or that individual state. These articles are in Convention XIII of 1907 ('Neutral rights and duties in maritime war'). By them a belligerent war-ship in a neutral port is allowed to carry out such repairs as are absolutely necessary to render it seaworthy, but not such as in any way to put it in better fighting trim; to revictual so as to bring its supplies up to the peace standard; and, as regards fuel, to take in sufficient to enable it to reach the nearest port in its own country or even to fill its bunkers if this be the limit fixed by the neutral. What the Convention forbids is that the ship should replenish or increase its supplies of war material or its armament in neutral waters, or complete its crew, or, if it has once shipped

fuel in a neutral port, replenish its supply in a port of the same Power within the three succeeding months.

It will be noticed that no distinction is drawn above between repairs necessitated by injuries sustained in battle and other repairs. A proposal was indeed made to forbid the former, but it was abandoned on the ground that it might sometimes be impossible to assign the exact cause of the need for repairs. Instead it was expressly left to the neutral to indicate in each case what repairs might be carried out. Nothing in the Convention prevents the neutral from declining to allow the repair of injuries sustained in battle. The proper course would seem to be to disallow such repairs. This was the course adopted in the Russo-Japanese war, two years before the date of the Convention, by the United States; three Russian war-ships put into Manila in May 1905, after having been badly damaged in action; leave to repair them there was asked, but it was refused on the ground that no extension of the 'twenty-four hours' rule could be granted in such circumstances. The precedent is a valuable one. No similar question seems to have arisen as yet in the present war. After the battle off the Falkland Islands the German cruiser 'Dresden' is reported to have made for Punta Arenas, a Chilean settlement on the eastern part of the Straits of Magellan, and to have coaled there, but no mention is made of any repairing. In the case of the small German cruiser 'Geier,' the need of repair was, it may be presumed, not due to battle; the successive telegrams appearing in the 'Times' concerning this vessel furnish, all the same, an interesting illustration of neutral diligence on the matter before us. They are as follows:

'October 19, 1914.-Honolulu, Oct. 17.-The German cruiser "Geier" will remain here indefinitely, repairing her engines, which will require several weeks. ... American naval experts will determine what repairs are necessary.

...

'November 1.-Tokio, Oct. 31.-The "Nichi Nichi Shimbun' to-day publishes a message from Honolulu which says that although the repairs to the German cruiser "Geier" are finished, the vessel is now seeking an excuse to remain in port for the purpose of keeping a Japanese war-ship occupied

* See official French announcement in the Times' of Dec. 26, 1914.

in watching her. A joint British and Japanese protest to the local authorities has proved futile, and joint representations will now be made at Washington.

'November 6.-Washington, Nov. 4.-The authorities here have fixed a date by which the German cruiser " Geier," which has been under repair for some weeks at Honolulu, must either leave port or be interned. In order to give the "Geier" a chance of avoiding the Japanese cruisers, the date is being kept secret.

"Geier

99

'November 10.-Washington, Nov. 9.-The German cruiser has been interned at Honolulu until the end of the She failed to leave the port within the time-limit set by the United States.'

war.

Another admirable instance of United States sensitiveness to the claims of neutral duty is affordedaccording to a message from Washington printed in the 'Morning Post' for March 16-in connexion with the flight of the German cruiser Prinz Eitel Friedrich' into American waters. The message says:

'Unofficially a report has reached Washington that Capt. Thierichsen declares his boilers are in such a bad condition from the continued use of sea-water that he must have new boilers to put the vessel in a seaworthy condition, but there is a very grave doubt as to whether the Government will permit new boilers to be installed. Lawyers hold that under the strict construction of international law repairs may be made to a belligerent vessel in a neutral port, but that the terms of the repairs must not be made so elastic as to include rebuilding. To replace damaged boiler-tubes would be proper, but to replace worn-out boilers with new ones would violate the well-established practice of nations.'

If a belligerent war-vessel were repeatedly to come into a given neutral port and fill up its fuel-bunkers, it would undoubtedly be abusing the hospitality of the neutral, and the neutral who knowingly allowed this would commit a breach of neutral duty. But suppose the war-vessel never enters territorial waters of the neutral but arranges for a number of merchantmen to bring fuel out from the neutral port and deliver it on the high seas; is the neutral bound to put a stop to this if he can? It might be argued that the belligerent in such a case is not making the neutral port a base of operations, for it never enters that port, but is simply

a

drawing supplies from a neutral country by sea, an operation which renders the goods liable to capture as contraband but does not involve the neutral in any breach of duty. On the other hand, it may be urged that the merchantman is practically turning itself into a tender to the belligerent fleet and, as such, is itself become a belligerent war-vessel. The United States adopts the latter view. This is clear from the Rules issued on Sept. 19, 1914, for the guidance of its port-officials in dealing with cases like these; the Rules speak of the supply of fuel, etc., to a belligerent war-vessel either 'directly or by means of . . . merchant vessels of belligerent or neutral nationality acting as tenders.'

The State of Chile has carried the same view into practice. It has been ascertained that German cruisers in the Pacific have been systematically supplied with provisions and fuel by German merchantmen which have loaded in American, especially South American, ports. These merchantmen would declare that they were bound for Hamburg or Bremen and would load enough coal to take them to those ports and also large amounts of foodstuffs. A letter from Santiago (Chile) dated Nov. 9 and printed in the 'Times' of Dec. 16, 1914, cites an instance in which wireless communications between one of these steamers and German cruisers were intercepted by Chilean wireless stations. In the same letter it is pointed out how difficult it was for the port authorities, suspicious as they might be, to refuse the request of German steamers to be allowed to load the coal, seeing that British steamers sailing for Liverpool were regularly obtaining the large amount of coal required to take them to their destination. The German merchantmen, after delivering the coal, etc., to their cruisers, made as a rule for some other neutral state than that from which they had sailed.* It was not until the 'Karnak' broke that

*The Rules of Sept. 19, 1914, mentioned in the text, show that on this point the United States authorities were 'ware and waking.' In describing matters which would amount to circumstantial evidence that a merchant vessel laden with fuel or other naval supplies intended to deliver its cargo to a belligerent war-ship, Rule 3 includes the following: 'Where a merchant vessel has on a previous voyage between ports of the United States and ports of other neutral states failed to have on board at the port of arrival a cargo consisting of naval supplies shipped at the port of departure,