The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-09-21

belligerent ships could be permitted to
repair and reft; that those things did
not make neutral port naval base"
which term denotes the use of neutral
port as a station from which to watch
for, sally forth and attack an enemy,
and that a neutral could not seize and
detain a Confederate cruiser after it
had, outside Of neutral jurisdiction, duly
entered the service Of the Confederate
Government. The American arbitrator
at Geneva, Mr.. ADAMS, officially con-
coded that the supply of coal to a bel
ligerent involved no responsibility to
the neutral, unless the supply was with
intent ito promote, or complete, the ex-
ecution of hostile act"
The Geneva tribunal refused an award
against England on account of the
Georgia. Indeed, England was not held
responsible as a.neutral for any Confed-.
crate cruiser merely in consequence of
having furnished supplies of coal.
The nations are not yet in harmony
over coal supplies. France prefers not
to interpose restrictions. Her neutrality
circular Of six months ago does not
mention it. Were international law to
forbid neutral to supply coal to bel
ligerents, then all nations expecting to
be belligerents would naturally begin
scrambling for coaling stations in the
old world and the new.
When the student of international
law meditates on what was argued and
decided at Geneva, and on the recent
British order at Malta regarding the
utilizing by a belligerent of neutral ports
for immediate hostility against his
enemy, as the Confederate cruisers used
British ports, and meditates as we'll on
recent American treatment of the Lena,
he will inevitably ask himself where,
during the war of secession, the United
States cruisers made repairs and OBJ
tanned, coal in order to pursue the Con-
federate cruisers!
During the Crimean war, and on Nov.
Is, 1884, British belligerent cruiser ap-
peared in this same harbor of San Fran
cisco, accompanied by a Russian vessel,
the Sitka, alleged to be a prize of war.
Attorney General CUSHING gave to secre-
tary MARCY a learned opinion on the
applicable principles Of law enveloping
the event. Those principles have not
been modified in the half century that
has since elapsed. The seeking by bel
ligerent cruisers of neutral ports as
asylums for averting impending doom
is not novel. Confederate cruisers
sought and obtained neutral asylums
II on Aug. 10 Russian cruisers, emerging
from the harbor OF Port Arthur, had
sought to enter Wei Hai-Wei would Eng
land have repealed them, or would she
have received them as Germany did at
Kiaochau, and China did in her ports?
The United States complained at Cen
eva Of excessive British Inequalities to
Confederate cruisers, and Of discour-
tesies to American cruisers in pursuit Of
the former. The british counter case
presented the result of a minute exami-
nation OF the facts, and it is diverting in
view Of what the world now sees
Ten Confederate cruisers visited Brit
ish ports between 1860 and 1895, and for
only three and their tenders was England
held responsible. The total number Of
Confederate visits was twenty-five, and
eleven of them were made for repairs.
Coal was taken in at sixteen of these
Of stay fixed by the British order Of 1862
was exceeded. But there was total of
22s visits by the United States cruisers;
on thirteen occasions repairs were ef-
fected, and on forty-fve was coal taken
in. The limit Of stay was forty-four times
exceeded. How could the American
cruisers pursuing the Confederates have
kept the sea under the rule recently ap-
piled TO the Lena?
The Georgia was disarmed in Liver
pool harbor; sold at auction in May.
1884; fitted up as merchantmen; char
tered by her purchaser to Portugal;
cleared for Lisbon laden with coal; cap
tured by an American cruiser while on
the voyage; taken into Boston; libelled
there, and condemned by the United
States Supreme Court as lawful prize,
upon the ground that the auction pur-
chase gave no title, as against the United
States, to what was sold as Confederate
cruiser The purchaser appealed to the
mixed commission provided by the
Treaty of Washington for Britons claim
ing to have been unlawfully treated by
American prize courts, The commission
unanimously upheld the Supreme Court.
The decision it Is true, bound only the
parties, and did not make international
law for Russia or Japan.
We haye recalled these facts NOT at all
in the interest Of either Japan or Russia,
nor in condemnation Of the American
treatment of the Lena.
EIouuence EsliCk