The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-06-01
Times quotes a British admiral as fol-


 The use of such mines by beiliger- ent to defend harbors or roadsteads is unquestionable. The laying down of mines on open coasts in territorial wa ters. not for the defense of port but as traps for the destruction of an en- emy's ships, however dangerous to passing neutral ships. may be within the right of a belligerent. On this venture no opinion. But the laying of mines fin the open sea beyond territo- inhuman but a breach of international law and practice. The open sea. as stated by Vattel. is the common prop erty of all nations
 This may be good as far as 1t goes, but it still leaves unsettled the ques- tion of how far from land a belliger- ent has a right to set mines. Both the Russians and the Japanese have re- sorted to this method of warfare and it may be that both have transcended the limits of legitimate defensive and of fensive operations. It certainly looks so when we are assured by a cores pondent of The London Times that he saw floating mines at least six miles from the harbor of weihaiwei. which is a British port on the Chinese coast and lying almost due south of Port Arthur. The waters in the vicinity of this weihaiwei are continually trav- ersed by neutral vessels going to and coming from important Chinese ports, and these vessels are in constant dnn- ger. Admitting the moral and inter national right of any belligerent to lay mines and torpedoes in its own waters. is there no limit to the distance? Must the vessels of all nations. travelling in neutral waters, be in constant danger from hidden explosives? This Is a question that international law must some day settle.
 Rut those are not the only or the worst dangers in this connection. If we admit that mines may be placed in and near harbors as a means of de- fence, what of the floating mines7 Here is a menace both present and future, for not only do the anchored mines break from their moorings and float at will, but they now use floating mines which follow the drift of the waters, and it is charged that the Russians at Port Arthur sent out junk-boats at night which would drop the explosives overheard as far from land as the little vessels travelled. This was done on the hope or chance that one of them might sink or disable a Japanese ves- sel far from land.
 But even this Is not the worst and most dangerous feature of this method of warfare. If, after the war between Japan and Russia is ended, all the hid den mines could be taken up or rem dered harmless there would be less danger in the future, however perIlou. navigation may be while hostiiities are in progress. but that is not all. After the war is over and for many years afterwards 1t is probable that from time to time ships will be sunk by &C., cidental contact with the mines which mines may get into the ocean currents and be carried half around the world before striking a hull. For the next ten years merchantmen must be In fear of the waters not only in the vi- cinity of Port Arthur and east of Asia but everywhere in the path of the Kuro Siwo drift which sweeps across the Pacific ocean.
 This is certainly a serious problem for the future and no one may foresee or foretell the end. The navigable wa ters of the globe are now so accurately charted that an experienced navigator is able to avoid the hidden rocks and shoals of the seas, but here is a dan ger that no chart lays down, no science can foresee and no skill can avoid To all the other dangers of navigation Is to be added a menace which will be for ever shifting and forever threatening It looks as if this may become d ques- ton of such importance and gravity that civilized nations will be compelled to take cognlzance of 1t and fix some limitations to this species of warfare.