New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-09

of the natural advantage 10 WHICH shc was eh
titled. of remoteness from her antagonists Dase
of sunnlies If current reports are true' the
French authorities in Indo- China have incurred
81 serious responsibility. For while the grant
ino, oF such privileges to the Russians might
nor no technically a violation Of the letter OF
tho law il might we'll be regarded as viola
ton of its spirit; and in matters OF peace and
war the spirit sometimes counts for more than
the letter.
We saw the letter of the law may not have
been violated, because in fact there Is no in
ternational law upon the subject. Perhaps we
NAV regard the three-mile limit as legal pre-
scrption We cannot SO regard the twenty
four hour rule as applied TO the time during
which beligerent vessels may enjoy neutral
hospitality There is no international law upon
that subject Each nation is free to prescribe
its own time limit-be it twenty-four minutes
or twenty-four weeks. Great Britain mas, we
believe, uniformly prescribed and enforced the
twenty-four hour rule since 1862 So have some
other nations. Others have not There is no
compulsion upon any to do So or to adopt the
same rule in different wars. 1t all depends
upon the will of the individual government
when ii issues it's neutrality proclamation at
the beginning of the war In the present case
Great Britain, the United States, Denmark,
Sweden and Norway and China have commit
We are not aware that any other power has
done so. France certainly has not Her proc.
lamation upon the subject explicitly declares
that 1.-The length Of stay Of belligerents in our
ports when not accompanied by prizes is not
ito be limited by any special term" Theoret-
icalIy. of course such indefinite hospitality is
extended to both beIrgerents alike. Practically,
it was sure that only Russian ships would seek
it or make material use Of it, and 1t IS not I'M
natural or unreasonable for the Japanese to
suspect that the rule was thus made for the
purpose of aiding Frances ally and for the pur-
pose Of enabling Russia to send a new fleet to
the China seas which without such provision
she could scarcely have done.
It may be contended, then, that the extraor-
binary privileges granted to Admiral Rojest-
vensky at Madagascar and at Kamranh Bay
were not technical violations of French neu-
trality since French neutrality on this occa-
sion is Of a sufficiently elastic nature to permit
them. 1t may with no less force be contended
that such elasticity Of neutral provisions might
in some circumstances nullify the real spirit
of neutrality. neutral rule that was clearly
for the advantage of one and for the disadyan-
tage Of the other belligerent could scarcely be
regarded as equitable. The whole business EN-
phasizes the desirabiIity Of some further inter
national action in the direction OF securing uni
form rules among all nations in all wars. Inc
three-mile rule has long been practically uni
form and universal though perhaps now, IN
view of the vastly increased range of artillery
1t needs revision. The rule that free ships make
free goods is also accepted item of interna-
tional law. 1t would greatly simplify inter
national relationships in time of war If there
could be some similar adoption of uniform
rule concerning the hospitality to be given to
belligerent ships in neutral ports. This and
N
well serve as subject matter for consideration
at the next international congress at The Hague.
Meantime, we must hope that the good sense
and seIf-restraint of the three powers concerned
will keep the present crisis from becoming more
acute.