Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-09-22
SECRETAR HAYS NOTE
Rights of Neutral Shipping
Set Forth.
THE RULE OF NATIONS
VIOLATION BY THE vLADIvosToK
PRIZE COURT.
Decision Rendered Which This Govern
ment Cannot Accept - A
Vigorous Protest.
THE RULE OF NATIONS

Hays note of August 30, 1904 to Ambassa-
dor Mccormick at ST. Petersburg in regard
to the action of the Russian navy in Selling
neutral vessels:
Il have the honor to acknowledge the re-
ceipt of your No. 176 of the 10th instant.
THE department has carefully consid-
cred the note of the Russian minister of
foreign affairs, dated July 81 last, a copy
of which is inclOsed with your dispatch,
with reference to the decision of the prize
court In the case of the steamship Arabia,
containing American cargo, seized by the
Russian naval forces and sent to Vladivos-
tok for adjudication.
"As communicated to you by the minister,
the decision of the court was that the
steamer Arabia was lawfully SEIZED that
the cargo, composed of railway material
and -four weighing about 100000 livres,
destined to Japanese ports and addressed
to different commercial houses in said
ports, constitutes contraband of war
that the cargo bound for Japanese ports
should be confscated as being lawful prize
I'm communicating the said decision the
minister observed. in response to The Re
quest of this government for the release OF
the non-contraband portion of the cargo,
that the question could only be decided
through judicial channels the basis of
a decision of the prize court.
rms Is the first authentic information
precise grounds on which the prize court
decided to confiscate the railway material
and flour in question The Judgment of con-
hscation appears to be founded on the mere
fact that the goods in question were bound
for Japanese ports and addressed to vari-
Gus commercial houses in said ports. In
view of its well-known attitude, 1t should
hardly seem necessary to say that the gov
eminent of the United States is unable to
admit the validity of the judgment. which
appears to have been rendered in disregard
of the settled law of nations in respect to
what constitutes contraband of war. If
the judgment and the communication &C
cOmpanying its transmission are to be
taken as an expression of the attitude of
his imperial majestys government, and as
an Interpretation of the Russian imperial
order of February 20 last, it raises ques-
ton of momentous import in its bearing on
the rights of neutral commerce.
THE Russian imperial order denounces as
absolutely contrabrand of war telegraph.
telephone and railway materials, and fuel
of all kinds without regard TO the question
whether destined for military or for purely
pacific and industrial uses.
Ambiguity as to enemy"
CLAUSE 5, article 10, of the imperial order
denounces as contraband of war all ar
ticles destined for war on land sea- as
well as rice. provisions and horses, beasts
of burden and others (autres) capable OF
serving warlike purpose and If they are
transported on account or or 10 the desu-
nation of the enemy.
1.-The ambiguity of meaning which char
acterizes the language of this clause, lend
ing itself to double Interpretation, left IT'S
real intendment doubtful. The vagueness
of the language, used in so important
matter, where just regard for the rights
of neutral commerce required that it should
be clear and explicit. could not fail to eX-
cite inquiry among American shippers, who.
left in doubt as to the significance attri-
buted by his imperial ma jesty's government
to the word 'enemy-uncertain as to
whether 1t meant enemy government or
forces or enemy ports or territory'-have
been compelled to refuse the shipment of
goods of any character to japanese ports.
The very obscurity of the terms used
seemed to contain a destructive menace,
even to legitimate American commerce.
I'm the Interpretation of clause 10 of
article 3, and having regard to the tradi-
tional attitude of his imperial majesty's
government. as we'll as to the established
goods which a belligerent may may not
treat as contraband of war, 1t seemed 70
the government of the United States in
credible that the word autreS or the word
Iennemi could be intended to include as
contraband of war foodstuffs fuel. cotton
and all other articles destined to japanese
ports. irrespective of the question whether
they were intended for the support of
non-combatant population or for the use
of the military or naval forces. In its Cir
cular of June 10 last, communicated by you
To the RUSSIAN government the department
interpreted the word enemy in mitigated
sense. as well as in accordance with the
enlightened and humane principles of In
ternational law, and, therefore, ii treated
the word enemy. as used in the context.
as meaning enemy government or forces
and not the enemy ports or territory
But If a benign Interpretation was
placed on the language used IL is because
such an Interpretation was due to the Rus
sian government, between whom and the
United States most valued and unbro,Ien
friendship has always existed and it was
no less due to the commerce of the latter
inasmuch as the broad Interpretation of
the language used would imply total in
hibition of legitimate commerce between
Japan and the United States which il
would be impossible for the latter to ac-
quiesce in.
Impossible to Accept.
Whatever doubt could exist as to the