Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-09-22
Merchantmen That Become
Warcraft After Leaving Port.
ENGLAND'S ATTITUDES
CASE OF THE sMoLENsK CoMPAR-
ED WITH THAT OF THE GEORGIA.
British "Courtesies" to Confederate
Vessels in Civil War - Americas
Treatment Of the Lena.
From the New York Sun.

From the New York Sun.
Newspaper gossip says that the Lena is to
be offered for sale by Russia. That starts
new sensational questions for the interna-
tional legists. 1t might be good plan for
the intending purchaser to obtain. before he
buys. the advice of a competent lawyer. lest
Japan. after the sale. seize the vessel as
enemy's property and take her before
japanese prize court.
The purchaser will also do well to medi-
tate on the career of the confederate cruiser
Georgia, that was VIGOROUSLY built in Scot
land for the confederate government;
launched in 1888 received British register:
cleared In March of that year on q pre-
tended voyage to China, and took from an
other steamer on the French coast guns and
ammunition sent by her British agents.
After leaving the French coast, Maury.
her commander, produced on deck his COM
mission from Jefferson Davis and proclaim
ed her the Georgia whereupon she set forth
on her work of destroying American ves-
sells. Mr.. Adams, at London, had two days
earlier informed Earl Russell of what had
happened, and where the ship could be
found. Russell promised efficient efforts to
arrest her. but she was not seized She was,
on the contrary, received at CapetoWn as
duly commissioned confederate cruiser. In
May of the next year she reappeared in
Liverpool harbor after having destroyed
many American vessels. In defiance or the
new twenty-four hours rule or neutrality,
which England had proclaimed on January
81, 1882, she was permitted to remain The
British government would not seize ner ana
prosecute her for violating British neu-
trality, but pleaded that the enect or pro-
claiming her in the service of the confed-
eracy, although she had never been In It's
waters had done away with the illegality
of her origin, and entitled her to the same
treatment in British ports as cruisers or the
United States. The steamer Altar. which
carried to the Georgia her naval outfit and
delivered 1t to her on the French coast was
not prosecuted, although the character Oh
the fitting out of the Georgia In neutral
England was fixed by the trial and conVlc-
ton of those in Liverpool who there en-
listed the seamen. Another person pleaded
guilty to the charge OF hitting her out. OUT
was never punished
Traders, Then Cruisers.
comparison of the pending British con-
tentions with Russia over the Smoiensk
and ST. Petersburg, which passed through
the natural canals Of COnstantinople as
unarmed commercial vessels and then
cruised In the Red sea as Russian naval
vessels commissioned to make captures for
carrying contraband and the British orders
promulgated at Malta on August IL. 1874
regarding the treatment of Russian cruisers
In British ports, with the treatment, forty
years ago, of cruisers commissioned on the
ocean by the confederate states will show
how peculiar is international law. how slow
is its growth. and how important 1t Is for
writers thereon to discriminate between
ideas of Justice and morality which should,
as they think. be international rules and
those to which the nations have actually
consented.
The United States had practical expert
ence of that at Paris when the Boring sea
tribunal denied that Secretary Blltup'S
contra bonos mores doctrine had become
International law.
All the world can now read the denuncia-
ton by the British government and by Lon
don newspapers of the Russian claim that
her two Black sea vessels were duly made
naval cruisers In the Red sea: and yet only
a third of a century ago that same British
government instructed her advocates at
Geneva to insist that there are no general
rules which prescribe how, where. or in
what form the commissioning must be eff
fected SO to impress on the vessel the
character of public ship of war"
Rights Of Neutrals.
With respect to the admission OF belliger-
ent ships into neutral ports, the British
case presented at Geneva maintained that
1t was within the absolute discretion of
neutral either to refuse grant admission;
that no restrictions were required to be
placed on the purchases of provisions. coal.
UT any supplies OtHST imam munitions OF
war: that belligerent ships could be per-
mitted to repair and reht; that those things
did not make neutral port naval base
which term denotes the use Of a neutral
port as a station from which to watch for,
sally forth and attack an enemy, and that
neutral could not seize and detain a con-
federate cruiser after 1t had, outside of
neutral jurisdiction, duly entered the serv
ice of the confederate government. The
American arbitrator at Geneva. Mr. Adams,
officially conceded that the supply Of coal
to belligerent involved no responsibility
to the neutral, unless the supply was with
intent to promote. or complete. the exc
cution OF hostile act
The Geneva tribunal refused an award
against England on account OF the Georgia.
Indeed, England was not held responsible
as neutral for any confederate cruiser
merely In consequence OF having furnished
supplies of coal.
The nations are not yet in harmony over
coal supplies. France prefers not to inter-
pose restrictions. Her neutrality of six
months ago does not mention 1t. Were in
ternational law 10 forbid neutral to sup
ply coal to belligerents then all nations ex-
pecting to be belligerents would naturally
begfn scramblng for coaling stations in the
old world and the new.
when the student Of international law
medltates on what was argued and decided
at Geneva and on the recent British order
at Malta regarding the utilizing by a bel
ugerent or neutral ports for immediate hos
unity 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
obtained coal in order to pursue the con-
federate cruisers.
Asylum for Belligerents.
During the Crimean war and on Noyem-
Der %. 1854. British belligerent cruiser
appeared in this same harbor of San Fran
cisco. accompanied by a Russian vessel
She Sitka, alleged TO be prize of war At
;orney General Gushing gave to Secretary
Marcy 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 belligerent cruisers of neutral
ports as asylums for averting impending
doom is not novel Confederate cruisers
sought and obtained neutral asylums. II
on August 10 Russian cruisers emerging
from the harbor OF Port. Arthur had sought
to enter Wei-Hai-Wei would England 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 Geneva
or excessive British Inequalities to con-
federate cruisers. and of discourtesies to
American cruisers I'm pursuit of the former
The British counter case Dresented the re-