The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-18
THE SALE or SUBMARINES.
Sub loot % Capture % Contysband. hut No
Violation OF Neutral Obligations.

VIOLATION OF NeutruA ODiSauous,
To THE EDITOR OF THE suN--Str; From
the reports Of your Washington correspond
ont as TO the building of submarine boats
for Russia and Japan by private shipyards
In this country, II seems likely that no action
will be taken by our Government In the matter.
Az both OF the belli gerents have given orders
for tbeee vessels. IL Ia hardly probable that
the diplomatic representative Of either will
make any protest. but II a protest were made
1t could not be supported on any tenablc
grounds.
The fact that these vessels when shipped
are not capable OF being used for immediate
naval operations. are not armed or furnished
with crews. and In fact are only sections OF
ships that are to be put together after they
have left our territory renders them In their
incomplete condition mere merchandise. con-
traband II Is true and subject to be oonfscated
II captured BY the enemy. but the shipment
OF which by private individuals 10 no violation
Of international obligations on the part Of our
Government.
Under the law Of nations. even II these
vessels were fully equipped for hostile pur-
poses, their sale and delivery to either OF the
belligerents would not constitute breach
Of our neutrality. Prof Hall. discussing this
question In his latest edition G904). Of -ln-
ternational Law, says:
1t Is fully recognized that q vessel completely
armed and in every respect htted. the moment
II receives It's crew, to act as man -ofwar, is .
proper subject Of commerce. There Is nothing
to prevent It's neutral possessor from selling II
and undertaking 10 deliver II In the neutral port
or In that Of the purchaser, subject TO the right
OF the belligerent 70 seize II a. contraband II he
meets II on the high or within his enemy 8
waters. There Is nothing" says Mr.. Justice
Story. delivering the opinion Of the United States
Supreme Court In the OF the Santissims TTini-
dad. n the law OF nations that forbids our citizens
from sending armed vessels as well as munitions
OF war TO foreign ports for sale. II commercial
adventure which nation Is bound TO prohibit"
II the ne utral may sell his vessel when built he
may build Il 10 order. and It must be permissible
between the bellige and the neutral State,
10 give the order which II is permissible 70 execute
II would appear. therefore, arguing from general
principles Alone that vessel Of war may be built
armed and furnished with q minimum navig ating
crew. and that In this state. provided II has not
received Q commission II may clear from neutral
harbor on confessed voyage 10 beligerent
port without any infraction Of neutrality having
been committed.
1t is true that our neutrality laws codifled
In the Revised Statutes impose much severer
restrictions upon the building and fitting
out Of vessels intended for belligerent pur-
poses than does the law Of nations. but our
obligations to other nations are determined
not by our municipal statutes but by the law
OF nations. MIR. Wharton. In his -Commen-
tary on American Law points out that our
statute. passed in 1918. was enacted from
excessive caution for the purpose OF keeping
the new republic out Of the war then raging
In Europe: that IL was never regarded as
determining the duties Of the United States
to foreign belligerents and that the ruling
Of the court In the case Of the Santissima
Trinidad has been accepted by the Federal
Government as determining the scope OF
that statute He adds:
Now It so happens that since the civil war we
have been constantly supplying with armed ships
foreign nations In q state Of belligereucy either
actual or prospective. There has not been Q single
oicsl intimation that sales of this kind illegal
Were q prosecution to be ordered against parties
making such sales, there can be no question that
the ruling In the Santissina Trinidad would be
repeated and the defendants In such cases
Quilted. And even were 1t otherwise. and the
sales were 10 be held Illegal by our municipal law,
that municipal law would not be held 70 modify
the law OF nationsl and make our Government
liable 10 the offended belhEerent for It's omission
70 stop such sales. No doubt to careiessiy or
knowingly permit an armed cruiser 10 be manned
In neutral port, and sent out from such port TO
prey belligerent commerce. or TO form a part
OF . bellgcrent navy, Is q breach of neutrality.
Rut for neutral 70 sell ship, even an ironclad.
10 a belhxerent such ship not being manned and
armed In q neutral port. Is no more breach Of
neutrality than for neutral to permit sblcbodied
men 10 emigrate TO q belliEerent State.
Upon general principles it would seem to
be no more a violation Of our neutral obliga-
tons to allow our citizens to furnish ships
to the belligerents than to allow them to
furnish batteries Of artillery. the only differ
ence being that ships are to be used on sea
while the batteries are to be used on land.
OF course In either CASE the shippers must
take the risk OF capture In transit and con-
seauent con hscation. J. 8. TUCKER.
WARHINGTOE Oct IT.