The daily morning journal and courier., 1905-02-24
PARTLY OUR FAULT.

The difficulty that, has arisen over the three officers of the Russian cruis-' CT Lena, who have broken their parole, is in part the fault of the American government, thet result, as it were, of something like contributory negligence. The cofnmonest knowledge of Russian character and practices should have prohibited the granting of any paroles, ali the men on the cruiser, officers and men alike, should have been interned. International obligations demanded that much and required nothing more. Granting more was only extending a courtesy to people who are not worthy of it and who were pretty sure to take unfair advantage of the spec ial consideration shown. %s
 The Lena limped into the harbor of San Francisco last September and un- der the law of nations became entitled to the right of asylum. There were those who said and others who thought that. her disablement, was more appa- rent than real and that she had really fled to that neutral port in preference to risking an encounter with the ene- my. But the American government had no reason to inquire too cilriously as to that. As the government of a neutral power it incurred certain obli- gations as soon as the belligerent craft dropped anchor in water under it's ju- risdiction. It was obligated to see that the right of asylum was not abused, to the injury of the other belligerent;, to compel the vessel to set sail again within twenty four hours or submit to be dismantled and put out of commits sion for the remainder of the war. The Russians elected the latter alternative, as they had the right to do. #:
 In such a case the modern practice under international law provides that the officers and crew of the dismantled vessel shall be interned by the neutral government, just as land forces in sim liar plight have been treated for nearly half a century. Humanity recognizes that when belligerent forces, whether land or naval, are by any stress or chance driven across neutral borders they ought not to be driven back to captivity or death by neutral bayo- nets. On the other hand, neutrality demands that they shall not be permit ted to use the territory they have en- tered as a place of refuge where, safe from pursuit, they may reorganize their shattered strength and again sally forth to combat. And these two requirements are reconciled by the practice of disarming them and retain ing them in honorable detention till the end of the war. That is as little consideration as decency permits a neu- tral to offer them and as much as they have a right to ask.
 Examples of this interning of naval forces are not so common as those of interning land troops. In either case, however, the methods are the same. The intemed men are bound to submit to the process and to make no attempt to compromise the neutrality of the na- ton in which they have found asylum. The expenses to which the latter is put are in the end to be borne by the home government of the interned men. One of the best known cases in point is that of the eighty-five thousand ragged and starving French troops, the wreck of Bourbaki's army, that took refuge in Switzerland in the closing days of the German war. They were at once disarmed, clothed and ed by the Helvetic government, and on the declaration of peace they returned to France under an agreement by which the latter paid a lump sum to defray the costs to which the Swiss adminis- tration and people had been put.
 That is the course that should have been taken by the American govern ment with the officers and crew of the Lena. But in an excess of unealied for courtesy it went beyond the safe practice and instead of keeping them