Evening journal., 1898-06-30
CONTEMPORARY OPINION
ADMIRAL cAMARA's TRIALS.

ADMIRAL CANfARA'S TRIALS.
Notwithstanding Admiral Camara's
inability to secure the desired coal sup
ply for his feet at Port Said, II is an
nounced by way OF Madrid that he has
been ordered to go through the Suez
canal on his ostensible journey to the
Philippines. This announcement is ac-
cOTnpanied by a dispatch from Rome
declaring that Camaras squadron will
not be permitted to coal at any OF the
Italian ports on the Red sea- II the
accepted rule as to neutral obligations
respecting the furnishing OF coal sup
plies to belligerants is impartially ap-
piled at the italian ports where the
Spanish squadron would be likely to
call for coal, Admiral Eamara's expe-
dition Will soon be In a sorry plight.
The statement that the Italian Gov
ernment has informed Spain that Ca
mara's feet cannot take an unlimited
supply OF coal at Italian ports is unoffi-
cial and Admiral Camaras order to go
through the Suez canal may have been
made under the belief possibly under
an assurance from italy, that the rule
as to coarng a belllgerent war fleet in
a neutral port may be somewhat re-
laxed.
The coanng rule has not been OBJ
served with equal rigor by all nations.
England first applied the doctrine that
a belligerent warship should not be al
lowed to receive at any neutral port a
greater supply OF coal than would be
sufficient to enable the vessel to reach
it's nearest home port, and that a sec
ond supply could not be secured in a
neutral port after the expiration Of
three months, without the express au-
| thorization OF the neutral government.
/ Great Britain adopted the rule in 1S62
consequent upon the civil war In
America. In 1870, at the outbreak of
the Franco-German war, the United
States adopted the regulation. Profes-
sor Lawrence, in his Principles OF In
ternational Law (1S95), referring to
this subject, remarks:
1t is often said that a neutral state
is bound to allow belligerent cruisers
10 take on board no more coal than is
sufficient to. carry them to the nearest
port OF their own country Such an
obligation is unknown TO the law OF ma
tions. which arms neutrals with au-
tnOrity to impose what restraint they
deem necessary, but does not condemn
them II they impose none. Ii classifes
coal, not with arms and ammunition
the supply OF which is prohibited, but
with provisions and naval stores, the
supply Of which is allowed 1t is a
, grave question whether the rule ought
not to be changed. In modern warfare
speed is becoming more and more i'm.
portant, and coal is as much a neces
sity for fighting purposes as glinpOw
der. There is good reason, therefore
for making II a forbidden commodity
but the change must be effected by
general consent or universal custom
Belligerents are bound to sub
, NIT to reasonable regulations in this a
In other matters, and neutrals ar
bound to take efficient means for tn
protection OF their neutrality; but n,
more precise obligations have as ye
been laid upon them"
:" Restriction as to the coal suppl
d which may be furnished at neutra
n ports to belligerents has become S
o universally observed as to have almoe
the force OF a rigid rule of interna
tional law, and no nation should dc
part from t. The government OF EgyI
u would naturally follow the British pre-
y cedent as TO the coaling OF war vessel
OF bellgerent powers, and Il Is to b
hoped that the italian Government wi
be equally strenuous in enforcing tn
common sense rule. The regulatio
70 grows out of the conditions OF moder
Y naval warfare, but the contraiban
character OF coal has not been recol
nized by all nations at this late dat
II is possible that Admiral Camara ma
'e secure coal for the long voyage to II
a Philippines, II the suicidal movement
d really in contemplation. II is incred
BILE that he would undertake such
mission without some assurance Of
oe sufficient coal supply.-Philadelph
Ledger.