New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-17
NrrrRALrTY " TIE WAR.

lines Of neutrality in the war are now pretty
completely drawn. The actual belligerents are
Japan and Russia. But Corea has practically
been forced into the attitude Of belligerent-
that is TO saw the COrean government as To-
DAVIS dispatches announce, has given japanese
troops permission 10 traverse Corean territory
and fins 70 make Il a base Of action against
Russia That may have been done through sym
uathy with the japanese cause, or simply De-
cause the Coreans knew Japan would thus use
their country whether they gave permission or
not and they thought it would be better Tor
them. and give Corea better standing with
japan. 10 give such permission. In either case,
II practically makes COrea an ally or Japan ana
DERIVES her OF the immunities due 10 a neutral.
China, without her permission, is compelled TO
let her ManchuriaI provinces be treated as
bellicerent ground. Indeed they seem destined
10 be prominently the battle-ground Of the
war
But all the rest OF the world is neutral, and
gives promise Of remaining truly neutral. There
IS little now heard Of the danger that Great
Britain and France will be dragged into the
conflict, and IL seems probable that such danger
Will continue TO fade away toward the vanish
ing point No pretext for violation OF neutrality
bv any other nation can be perceived. We as
sumo that both japan and Russia VIII scr1pu-
louslv observe the obligations OF international
law toward acknowledgements. Japan has ex-
pressed herself strongly upon that point, and
Russia. having a century and n quarter ago de-
clared her adherence to Frederick the Greats
nrincinle that free ships make free goods"
VIII surely not now depart therefrom. II thus
the two belliCerents refrain from offending neu-
trail nations the neutral nations VIII doubtless
keep hands OF and let them fight their quarrel
out
II seems probable that some precedents or
al least some interesting practice. in interna-
tiOnal law viii result from this war concerning
the scope Of the term "contraband Of war" 1t
has hitherto been a moot point whether coal IS or
is not contraband. In the old days Of sailing
vessels there was little, IL any. ground for put
ing a ban upon fuel OF any kind. But now
coal IS as necessary 10 the battleships as IS
gunpowder. It IS practically one OF the essen
tial munitions Of naval war. and there is there
fore a strong argument for regarding It as con-
traband OF war. The same is to be said OF
food supplies intended for an army. Food for
non-combatants may be exempt from seizure.
But the old saying that ''an army travels on its
belly" is literally true as true as that IL fights
with powder and ball, and on such ground food
also is brought into the category OF munitions
OF war and therefore Of contraband goods. Both
coal and food have thus been regarded before,
and the present war Will do something 10 con-
firm the precedents already set There IS ap-
parently little danger. however, OF this point
being for the present Of much practical concern
10 the United States. for Russia, n existing cir
cumstances, is not likely to try to import goods
from this side Of the Pacific while 81 japan
does so there viii he little fear Of Interference
with the traffic.