New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-20

The present war bids fair TO lead to some
fuller understanding concerning the status OF
the mails in time Of war. Russia and Japan
are both apparently acting upon the theory that
all mails consigned TO a belligerent port are
subject to seizure as contra band OF war, or at
least to detention and search. Japan has CON
tented herself with the seizure of mails sent out
from Port Arthur Russia has gone much fur
Their than that In stopping British and German
ships in the Red Sea and taking from them in
bulk all mail sacks marked for Japan. Against
such practice the German government is said
to have entered strong protest, while the Brit
ish government is Investigating the case and
there is agitation throughout the diplomatic
world.
The status of the mails in time of war has
been the subject of much controversy but has
not been clearly defined in treaties or in works
on International law. Hostile dispatches MILL
tary orders and the like, excepting the messages
OF ambassadors. have been recognized as con-
traband. and, OF course, subject to seizure Not
only is the transportation Of them equivalent
to the carrying Of contraband goods but the
fraudulent transportation of them is regarded
as a peculiarly hostile act, subjecting the Of
Tending vessel to the severest penalty OF confis-
cation. Such is the argument OF Sir William
Scott. But regular mail carrying vessel which
receives such dispatches in the ordinary course
or mail carrying, In ignorance of their charac-
ter, is not according 10 HautefeuiIle subject to
penalty. These principles apply, of course, only
TO hostile dispatches Ordinary mails of com
mercial personal or other non belligerent char
acter should certainly enjoy different status,
and would seem TO be entitled 10 exemption
from seizure when under neutral flag
Mr.. Seward long ago expressed the American
view of the case when he said that there is no
recognized sanction Of the principle that n
bona dde, authenticated and sealed public mail
"Of a friendly neutral power, found on COM
''mercial vessel navigating between two neu-
trial ports, can be violated lawfully either bv
"a naval officer or prize court, merely because
1.-THE vessel which it is found is searched and
"seized as cOntraband" But that does not ex-
actly apply to this case for we are told that
the German vessel whose mails were seized
was bound from Hamburg for Yokohama. and
Yokohama is not a neutral port. Washington.
in his NAVAL Prize Law" expressed n more
pertinent English view when he said that TO
give up the right TO search mail steamer and
mail bags when bound 10 a hostile port was n
sacrifice which could hardly he expected from n
belligerent
Even so, at least two further points are raised
which may prove troublesome TO Russia One
is the propriety of removing the mails in a mass
from the ship The German contention IS that
p Russia had no such right. To search the mails
aboard the ship that is carrying them to ascer
tain If they contain contraband dispatches IS
one thing Practically TO confiscate them all in
. lump, contraband and non-contraband 10
gether is decidedly different thing The otber
point has 10 do with the status of the ships that
old the seizing and searching. Only warships