fort embarrassé d'avoir a indiquer à ce moment un article quelconque qui pût être ajouté dans les conditions posées. La faculté d'ajouter, bien loin d'être illimitée, est en effet très rigoureusement restreinte, quelque large qu'elle puisse paraître dans la théorie. (British Parliamentary Papers, International Naval Conference, Miscellaneous, No. 5 (1909), p. 135.)

Other discussion showed that it would be difficult to add to the list any article which would be solely of use for war, and additions to the list were to be restricted to articles of that character.

Situation V, 1.-Under the first hypothesis a cruiser of X, a belligerent State, meets a cruiser of Z, a neutral State, on the high seas escorting a collier with a cargo consigned to K, a merchant, resident at B, a port of neutral State Z. This merchant is furnishing steaming coal of a high quality to a port of State Y. As coal could not be regarded as absolute contraband, the cargo would be liable to seizure only in case it was shown to be really destined for the forces of State Y. The supposition under (a) that the coal may be taken to a port of Y is not sufficient to justify interference with the convoying vessel if the collier is in reality bound for a neutral destination. In this matter, under the Declaration of London, which for the purpose of this situation is admitted to be binding, the visiting cruiser must take the word of the commander of the public vessel of Z, which is acting as escort for the collier. That differences might arise in the opinions of the escorting and visiting officers was recognized as almost inevitable, and the general report of the declaration says:

Differences may arise between the two officers, particularly in regard to conditional contraband. The character of a port to which grain is destined may be disputed. Is it an ordinary commercial port? Is it a port which serves as a base of supply for the armed forces? The situation in fact created by the convoy must in such a case prevail. There can be on the part of the officer of the cruiser only a protest, and the difficulty will be settled through the diplomatic channel.

The situation is altogether different if a convoyed vessel is found beyond the possibility of dispute to be carrying contraband. The vessel has no longer a right to protection, since the condition upon which such protection depends has not been fulfilled.

She has deceived her own Government and has tried to deceive the belligerent. She must therefore be treated as a neutral merchant vessel, which in the ordinary way encounters and is visited and searched by a belligerent cruiser. She can not complain at being thus treated rigorously, since there is in her case an aggravation of the offense committed by a carrier of contraband. (International Law Topics, 1909, p. 143.)

It is possible that the collier may have betrayed the confidence of the commander of the escorting cruiser. The collier may have false papers, may be guilty of unneutral service, or may for other reasons not be entitled to protection. The ground of carriage of contraband would not be a sufficient reason for withdrawal of protection if the collier is actually destined for B, a port of neutral State Z.

Solution V (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.

Treaty of Washington.-By the rules agreed upon between the United States and Great Britain in the treaty of Washington of 1871 relative to claims arising during the American Civil War the obligations of a neutral State are set forth under Article VI as follows:

A neutral Government is bound

First. To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

Second. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Third. To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her high commissioners and plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's Government

can not assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of the principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government has undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules.

And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them.

Prof. Moore says:

As to the second rule, the Case of the United States said that it was not understood "to apply to the sale of military supplies or arms in the ordinary course of commerce," but "to the use of a neutral port by a belligerent for the renewal or augmentation of such military supplies or arms for the naval operations referred to in the rule." The ports or waters of the neutral are not," continued the Case, "to be made the base of naval operations by a belligerent. Vessels of war may come and go under such rules and regulations as the neutral may prescribe; food and the ordinary stores and supplies of a ship not of a warlike charcter may be furnished without question, in quantities necessary for immediate wants; the moderate hospitalities which do not infringe upon impartiality may be extended, but no act shall be done to make the neutral port a base of operations. Ammunition and military stores for cruisers can not be obtained there; coal can not be stored there for successive supplies to the same vessel, nor can it be furnished or obtained in such supplies; prizes can not be brought there for condemnation. The repairs that humanity demands can be given, but no repairs should add to the strength or efficiency of a vessel beyond what is absolutely necessary to gain the nearest of its own ports. In the same sense are to be taken the clauses relating to the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms and the recruitment of men. As the vessel enters the port, so is she to leave it, without addition to her effective power of doing injury to the other belligerent. If her magazine is supplied with powder, shot, or shells; if new guns are added to her armament; if pistols, or muskets, or cutlasses, or other implements of destruction are put on board; if men are recruited; even if, in these days when steam is a power, an excessive supply of coal is put into her bunkers the neutral will have failed in the performance of its duty." (Moore, International Arbitrations, v. 1, p. 574.)

In discussion of the subject the British Case announces:

1. A neutral government is bound to exercise due diligence to the intent that no place within its territory be made use of by either belligerent as a base or point of departure for a military or naval expedition, or for hostilities by land or sea.

2. A neutral government is not, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, bound to prevent or restrain the sale within its territory, to a belligerent, of articles contraband of war, or the manufacture within its territory of such articles to the order of a belligerent, or the delivery thereof within its territory to a belligerent purchaser, or the exportation of such articles from its territory for sale to, or for the use of, a belligerent.

3. Nor is a neutral government bound, by force of the abovementioned obligation or otherwise, to prohibit or prevent vessels of war in the service of a belligerent from entering or remaining in its ports or waters, or from purchasing provisions, coal, or other supplies, or undergoing repairs therein; provided that the same facilities be accorded to both belligerents indifferently; and provided also that such vessels be not permitted to augment their military force, or increase or renew their supplies of arms or munitions of war, or of men, within the neutral territory. (Ibid, p. 599.)

The award made by the Geneva tribunal states

In order to impart to any supplies of coal a character inconsistent with the second rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters, as a base of naval operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such character. (Ibid, p. 655.)

Opinion of the Institute of International Law, 1875.— The Institute of International Law considered the rules of the treaty of Washington in 1875 and adopted the following among its propositions:

IV. De même l'État neutre ne doit ni permettre ni souffrir que l'un des belligérants fasse de ses ports ou de ses eaux, la base d'opérations navales contre l'autre, ou que les vaisseaux de transport militaire se servent de ses ports ou de ses eaux, pour renouveler ou augmenter leurs approvisionnements militaires ou leurs armes ou pour recruter des hommes. (1 Annuaire, 1875, p. 139.)

Brazilian proclamation, 1898.-The proclamation issued by Brazil during the Spanish-American War of 1898

60252-12-10

provides more than usual in detail for the conduct of belligerent vessels in Brazilian ports.

VIII. No ship with the flag of one of the belligerents employed in the war, or destined for the same, may be provisioned, equipped, or armed in the ports of the Republic, the furnishing of victuals and naval stores which it may absolutely need and the things indispensable for the continuation of its voyage not being included in this prohibition.

IX. The last provision of the preceding section presupposes that the ship is bound for a certain port, and that it is only en route and puts into a port of the Republic through stress of circumstances. This, moreover, will not be considered as verified if the same ship tries the same port repeated times, or after having been relieved in one port should subsequently enter another, under the same pretext, except in proven cases of compelling circumstances. Therefore, repeated visits without a sufficiently justified motive would authorize the suspicion that the ship is not really en route, but is frequenting the seas near Brazil in order to make prizes of hostile ships. In such cases asylum or succor given to a ship would be characterized as assistance or favor given against the other belligerent, being thus a breach of neutrality.

Therefore, a ship which shall once have entered one of our ports shall not be received in that or another shortly after hav ing left the first, in order to take victuals, naval stores, or make repairs, except in a duly proved case of compelling circumstances, unless after a reasonable interval which would make it seem probable that the ship had left the coast of Brazil and had returned after having finished the voyage she was undertaking.

X. The movements of the belligerent will be under the supervision of the customs authorities from the time of entrance until that of departure for the purpose of verifying the proper character of the things put on board.

XI. The ships of belligerents shall take material for combustion only for the continuance of their voyage.

Furnishing coal to ships which sail the seas near Brazil for the purpose of making prizes of an enemy's vessels or prosecuting any other kind of hostile operations is prohibited.

A ship which shall have once received material for combustion in our ports shall not be allowed a new supply there unless there shall have elapsed a reasonable interval which makes it probable that said ship has returned after having finished its voyage to a foreign port.

XII. It will not be permitted to either of the belligerents to receive in the ports of the Republic goods coming directly for them in the ships of any nation whatever.