that "area." The main statement of the attorney for the petitioner was:

The steamship Quang-nam, being the property of the China Coast Voyage Co., located at Paris, France, runs between Saigon, Manila, Philippine Islands, Iloilo, and Cebu. According to a charter entered into between the petitioners and the above company for the use of this ship in the transportation of goods she was loaded at Saigon in the fourth month of 1905 with a cargo consisting of cases of spirits and proceeded to Kamranh Bay, where she delivered her cargo. On her voyage from Kamranh Bay to Manila by way of Hongkong and Shanghai her engine was damaged, so she steamed into the Pescadore Channel with the object of finding harbor or some other ship to get assistance for repairs. She was, however, captured by the Japanese manof-war on the 16th of the fifth month in the above channel. This sbip is a neutral ship, and both the petitioners and the charterers are neutral subjects. Besides 130 tons of coal loaded at Shanghai she took on board no contraband person or goods or letter, and the master and others did not know that the vicinity of the Pescadore Islands was the zone over which the "protected sea area" had been proclaimed. Hence, this ship should not have been captured. The written opinion of the public procurator shows that he regarded this ship as employed by the Russian Government and reconnoitering the defenses of Japan and the movements of the Japanese fleet on behalf of the enemy. * ** * The main points of the opinion of the public procurator are: The charter party procured by the petitioners being a private document which might be prepared at any time can not be trusted. Consequently the petitioners are not parties entitled to bring this action; therefore this petition should be rejected. On the other hand, it may be inferred that this ship was chartered by the Russian Government and was engaged in reconnoitering the defenses of Japan and the movements of the Japanese fleet for the benefit of the enemy. Hence she is liable to confiscation. After reviewing and considering the evidence the court concludes as to the Quang-nam:

That she purposely took a difficult passage between Formosa and the Pescadores under the pretext of going to Manila, and ran into Hatto Channel, was evidently for the purpose of reconnoitering the defenses near those islands, and the movements of the Japanese Squadron. Moreover, the fact that she took on board, at Saigon, Cardiff coal which she never before consumed, that she sailed from Kamranh Bay to Shanghai by way of Hongkong without any cargo, and that, at Shanghai no cargo was loaded, but 130 tons of Cardiff coal were taken on board when

she had more than sufficient coal for her trip to Manila; all these facts must be regarded as means taken in order to accomplish the service of reconnoitering. When a ship, though neutral, has engaged in reconnoitering defenses and the movements of a squadron for the benefit of the enemy, as this ship did, her confiscation is allowed by International Law. For the above reasons this ship should be confiscated. (Takahashi, International Law Russo-Japanese War, pp. 736–738.)

The case was carried to the higher prize court, and the judgment was sustained on the same grounds. Takahashi regards this case as under the category of unneutral service. The court considers that the vessel ran into Hatto Channel "evidently for the purpose of reconnoitering the defenses near those islands, and the movements of the Japanese Squadron." The court said that reconnoitering of this character is just ground for confiscation.

..

As the area about the Pescadores Islands was a stra

tegical area or a "defense sea area the presence of the ship within the area seemed to be a circumstance that weighed against its release and an evidence of unneutral service.

Résumé. The practice, nature of regulations, and drift of opinion seem to show that in time of war a belligerent is entitled to take measures for his protection which are not unreasonable. Certainly he is entitled to regulate the use of his territorial waters in such fashion as shall be necessary for his well-being. Similarly a belligerent may be obliged to assume in time of war for his own protection a measure of control over the waters which in time of peace would be outside of his jurisdiction. It is universally admitted that if a neutral vessel is carrying contraband to his opponent, a belligerent may take the vessel to a prize court for adjudication. For such an act the course of the vessel may be changed, and it may be subjected to long delay. Would it be reasonable to contend that the course of a vessel may be changed to keep it out of a specified area because it might there obtain information which would be of vastly

greater importance to the enemy than a cargo of contraband, however noxious that might be.

SOLUTION.

The commander should decline to escort the merchant vessel through the strategic area.

He should advise the master of the merchant vessel to keep clear of the strategic area.

SITUATION V.

TAKING COAL IN NEUTRAL PORT.

[It is granted in this situation that the Declaration of London is binding.]

War exists between States X and Y. Other States are neutral.

A coal dealer, K, resident at B, in neutral State Z, is known to be furnishing steaming coal of high quality. (a) To coal dealers at a port of Y.

(b) To the Government of Y and to merchant colliers at B.

(c) To merchant colliers of Z which clear for a port of Y.

(d)

To neutral merchant colliers which clear for a

port of Y.

1. Under (a) a cruiser of X meets a cruiser of Z on the high seas escorting a collier of K toward B. The cruiser of X requests the cruiser of Z to dismiss the collier from his convoy on the ground of carriage of contraband.

What action should the cruiser of Z take?

2. Under (b) the Government of X requests Z to forbid naval and merchant colliers of Y to load coal of any quality in B on the ground that this makes B a base for Y.

What action should the Government take?

3. Under (c) the Government of X requests Z to forbid K to furnish high quality steaming coal except to neutral ships for bunker coal only.

What action should the Government take?

4. The Government of X requests Z to intern at B, a collier of Y loaded with steaming coal and about to clear for a second trip to a port of Y.

A collier of Z about to do the same.

A collier of M about to do the same.

In the cases of the colliers of Z and M unneutral service is alleged.

What action should be taken in each case?

5. A cruiser of X meets a collier of Z and a collier of M returning in ballast from a third coal-carrying trip,

130

since the opening of hostilities, between port B and a port of Y. The cruiser captures both colliers as being engaged in unneutral service, Z and M request the release of the colliers and indemnity.

What action should be taken?

SOLUTION.

(1) As the apparent destination of the cargo is a neutral port of Z, the commander of the cruiser of Z should not withdraw his protection unless he is reasonably certain that his confidence has been betrayed.

(2) The Government of neutral State Z should heed the request of belligerent State X as regards the naval colliers and other colliers belonging to or in the service of State Y, though there might be circumstances when it would be justifiable to allow a collier to take coal necessary for its own use, but merchant colliers may be allowed to take coal.

(3) The Government of neutral State Z is under no obligation to forbid the supply of cargo coal to neutral vessels.

(4) If the collier of belligerent State Y has entered or is sojourning in the port of nentral State Z in contravention of the regulations of State Z, the collier may be interned.

The colliers flying the merchant flag of neutral State Z or neutral State M may be guilty of unneutral service, but this does not involve State Z in any obligation to intern the colliers.

(5) The colliers should be released if their relations to the belligerent have been simply those of neutral merchant colliers. Their liability for carriage would be deposited with the cargo.

If the colliers were chartered entire by or under the orders or control of the enemy government, or otherwise engaged in unneutral service, they would be liable to detention.

NOTES.

Duty of State as to contraband.-There are some who hold the opinion that a State is under obligation not only as a political unity to refrain from all sale of contraband, but also to prevent those who are under its jurisdiction from engaging in the sale of contraband. Those