The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-16
QUESTION OF INTERNATIONAL

Every modern war raises International
ready raised by the present war is whether
the japanese are entitled to the surrender
as prisoners of the survivors of the two
Russian cruisers which were sunk at Che
mulpo last week, and who sought refuge
on three foreign warships-one British, one
made two or three demands for the sur
render of the men, claiming that as they
could have killed all of them while they
were in the water and only allowed them
to escape from motives of humanity, they
should be treated as prisoners of war. At
last accounts the commanders were in
doubt as to what course to pursue.
1t is an established principle of inter-
national law that the ships of any nation
on the high seas are. for purposes of juris-
diction, a part of the territory of the ma
ton to which they belong, and this rule APP
plies to warships in port as well as on the
high seas. Therefore. a person aboard a
British or French warship either on the
high seas or in port is virtually in British
or French territory. Suppose a prisoner
of war should escape and make his way to
British or French territory; it is doubtful if
his surrender could be demanded. And
these men were not technically prisoners.
because they had not yet been captured.
They were in peril of their lives. but they
got ava and got aboard the foreign ships.
The right of asylum is frequently claimed
and extended by foreign ships to political
refugees in time of revolution. 1t is never
extended to criminals. The United States
navy regulations contain the following:
The right of asylum for political ref
ugees has no foundation in international
law. In countries. however, where fire.
stability of government exists, local usage
sanctions the granting of asylum. but even
in the waters of such countries officers
should refuse all applications for asylum
except when required by the interests OF
humanity in extreme or exceptional cases.
such as the pursuit Of a refugee by a mob.
The case at Chemulpo was not one of
revolution but of open war. The fugitives
were not political refugees nor were they
pursued by a mob. but they were in immi-
nent peril of their lives and had a good
Cidiin dSSiuLl On ne STOunu OF human
ity.
In 1861. when the commander of a United
States armed ship boarded the British mail
boat Trent and removed therefrom Messrs.
Mason and Slidell. rebel emissaries bound
for England. Great Britain at once began
to prepare for war TO enforce their sur
render. In the United States the capture
of the rebels was hailed as a victory. The
secretary of the navy thanked the COM
mander who captured them and Congress
did the same. The prisoners were taken TO
Boston and confined in Fort Warren. but
not for long. President Lincoln and Secre-
tary Seward at once said that a serious
mistake had been made and that the Amer
lean contention against the British right
TO board and search American ships had
been violated They decided that the United
States was IN the wrong. that the prisoners
must be surrendered and an apology made.
and IL was done. That was a distinct rec
| IGNITION OF the principle that the deck of a