practice in the future. But, it is said, the failure of The Hague and London Conferences to come to an agreement upon the subject shows that the Continental Powers intend, in case of war, to enforce their claim to convert merchantmen on the high seas. Very possibly. But they will do the same whether or not the declaration is ratified, and our ratification will not tie our hands in the least, while The Hague convention explicitly reserves our right of action. (Bentwich, Declaration of London, p. 13.)

Neutral obligations.-A neutral State is under certain obligations to prevent acts which might be construed as failure to observe neutrality. The general statement on this subject is according to the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907:

ART. 8. A neutral Government is bound to employ' the means at its disposal to prevent the fitting out or arming of every vessel within its jurisdiction which it has reason to believe is intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, against a power with which that Government is at peace. It is also bound to display the same vigilance to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of every vessel intended to cruise, or engage in hostile operations, which has been, within the said jurisdiction, adapted entirely or in part for use in war. (Convention Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War.)

The same convention provides:

ART. 13. If a power which has been informed of the outbreak of hostilities learns that a belligerent ship of war is in one of its ports or roadsteads or in its territorial waters, it must notify the said ship to depart within 24 hours or within the time prescribed by the local regulations.

ART. 18. Belligerent ships of war can not make use of neutral ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters for replenishing or increasing their supplies of war material or their armament or for completing their crews.

ART. 24. If notwithstanding the notification of the neutral authorities, a belligerent ship of war does not leave a port where it is not entitled to remain, the neutral power is entitled to take such measures as it considers necessary to render the ship incapable of taking the sea during the war, and the commanding officer of the ship must facilitate the execution of such measures.

From the above provisions it is evident that responsibility may rest upon a neutral to prevent the departure of a vessel which there is reason to believe is intended to cruise against a power with which the neutral is at

peace. In absence of provisions to the contrary the period during which a ship of war may remain is 24 hours. The ship of war is not to make use of the neutral port for increasing its supply of war material. The neutral may intern a vessel which does not conform to its regulations in regard to sojourn. There is a comprehensive article relating to the whole of the thirteenth convention which states:

ART. 25. A neutral power is bound to exercise such surveillance as the means at its disposal allow to prevent any violation of the provisions of the above articles in its ports or roadsteads or in its waters.

While the belligerent is by this convention under obligation to respect the neutrality of States which are not parties to the war, the neutral States are under obligation to prevent the abuse of their jurisdiction.

Uncertainty as to vessel's character.-At the present time, while the convention concerning the conversion of merchant ships into war ships regulates conversion to some degree among States which have become parties to it, yet there are important respects in which the convention fails. The place of conversion and the matter of reconversion particularly remain open.

These uncertainties make the position of the neutral one of difficulty. If the neutral State does not use "due diligence" to prevent fitting out and arming, the neutral State may become liable for its neglect. On the other hand the

Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from all acts which would constitute, on the part of the neutral powers which knowingly permitted them, a nonfulfilment of their neutrality. (Convention, Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War, art. 1.)

The neutral State would naturally be reluctant to intimate to a belligerent that the belligerent was not observing his obligations under this convention. The temptation to pass beyond the rights permitted under the convention would, however, be strong in case of a private vessel which was about to be transformed into a vessel of 60252-12-13

war. A bona fide private vessel would not be subject to the limitations on period of sojourn and on character of goods which it might take on board which would apply to a ship of war. Conversion from a private to a ship of war would, according to accepted rulings, also affect the neutral goods on the converted vessel. Neutral goods on board a vessel of war would under the rulings of British prize courts have been regarded as liable to capture. The American decisions have in some cases been more lenient (The Nereide, 9 Cranch; Sup. Ct. Repts., p. 388.) It is probable that neutral goods placed, in good faith as to the private character, on board an enemy vessel would not be subjected to the extreme penalty of confiscation if the vessel should be transformed into a ship of war.

The neutral merchant would seem to be entitled to some means by which knowledge as to the probable character of a vessel for a voyage may be obtained. The neutral State would be much more justified in seeking such information as would make it free from accusation of neglect to fulfill its obligations.

Résumé.-The commander has reason to believe that the Robin, which is taking on supplies in the nature of contraband, is to be transformed into a war vessel. If the Robin is to be transformed the opportunity to take war supplies in a neutral port and the further privilege of remaining in the port unrestrained by the usual 24hour rule gives the Robin an advantage over a ship of war of State D though the Robin will shortly assume that character. The commander of the United States cruiser is therefore justified in requesting that the Robin be interned or otherwise restrained.

As the neutral State F would be liable for failure to observe strict neutrality if it did not investigate such a claim, it would be expedient for State F to take such action as may relieve it of responsibility. If it be found that the vessel may be converted, the neutral State may take the necessary measures to remove grounds for claims of indemnity. This may be done by placing the vessel under obligation to maintain its private character

till it reaches a port within the jurisdiction of belligerent State D. If such a pledge can not be secured, there would be ground for restraint or internment or such other action as would secure neutral State F against liability for neglect to use due diligence.

SOLUTION.

The action of the commander of the cruiser of the United States is warranted.

Neutral State F should take such action as would maintain its neutrality by obliging the Robin to give a guaranty that it would not change its private character till it reached a port under the jurisdiction of its own flag or a port under jurisdiction of an ally; or neutral State F may maintain its neutrality by other means of restraint even by internment if necessary.