Page images
PDF
EPUB

[Inclosure 3.-Translation.]

Decision of the admiralty court, October 9/22, 1904, steamer Allanton.

1. The steamer Allanton and cargo, consisting of coal, to be considered as not subject to confiscation and to be set free.

2. The arrest of the steamer and cargo to be considered as having been made on sufficient ground.

3. The decision of the Vladivostok prize court in that part which relates to the confiscation of the vessel and cargo to be reversed.

Chargé Eddy to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram.-Paraphrase.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, December 5, 1905.

(Mr. Eddy reports that the decision in the case of the Knight Commander, rendered on Saturday, maintains the finding of the Vladivostok prize court in regard to condemnation of the vessel and cargo, that the protest of Mr. Berline concerning neutral goods was allowed, and that that matter was referred to the Libau prize court for revision under article 88, naval prize regulations.)

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 27 OF THE HAGUE PROTOCOL OF 1899.

RULES OF WAR.

Memorandum from the Russian Embassy left at the Department of State January 6, 1905.

[Translation.]

General Stoessel, aid de camp, communicates that the Japanese army, while bombarding Port Arthur, frequently directed its fire against the hospitals of this fortified city, as well as against the floating hospitals, causing serious damage to them. Thus on November 30 after the capture of Great Mountain the Japanese directed the fire of their 11-inch guns against our hospitals in which there were wounded persons. Hospital No. 9 suffered specially, and its chief surgeon, Doctor Krjivec, was killed. The Japanese shell some time afterwards destroyed Hospital No. 6 and damaged Hospital No. 11, wounding a surgeon therein, a Sister of Charity, and a large number of wounded persons who were there undergoing treatment. General Stoessel did not fail at the time to call the attention of General Nogi, in command of the besieging troops, to these positively wrongful acts.

Considering the above-mentioned procedure of the Japanese as constituting a flagrant violation of the elementary principles of the law of nations, and especially contrary to article 27 of the protocol of The Hague, by which the laws of land warfare were regulated, and of which Japan is also one of the signatories, the imperial government deems it its duty to protest against said procedure in a formal manner.

The imperial ambassador at Paris, by order of his government, has requested Mr. Delcassé to instruct the minister of France at Tokyo to take this step.

Memorandum from the Department of State to the Russian Embassy, January 7, 1905.

The Department of State has received the undated memorandum of the Russian embassy containing the statements made by General Stoessel regarding the alleged bombardment of hospitals by the Japanese forces at Port Arthur, and the protest of the Imperial Russian Government against the acts alleged as in violation of the elementary principles of international law, and in conflict with the stipulations of article 27 of The Hague protocol relating to the laws of war on land. The Department of State takes due notice of the statements and protests thus made.

No. 62.]

The Acting Secretary of State to Ambassador Meyer.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, August 1, 1905. SIR: I inclose, for communication to the Russian Government, copy of a note from the Japanese chargé d'affaires ad interim at this capital," bringing to the attention of that government an infraction of article 6 of the Geneva convention, and of article 23 of the regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to The Hague convention of 1899, alleged to have been committed by Colonel Müller, in charge of the First Brigade of the Thirty-first Infantry Division of the Russian army.

You will transmit the papers to the Russian foreign office.

I am, etc.,

ALVEY A. ADEE.

Memorandum from the Russian Embassy left at the Department of State December 28, 1905.

The Russian embassy is requested to obtain an exhaustive list of articles of the laws of the United States as well as of treaties contracted by the United States Government with foreign countries bearing upon the subject of

1. The rights of belligerents toward each other, and.

2. The rights and duties of neutrals in time of maritime war.

It would be also highly desirable to obtain copies of the texts of these laws and treaties (with the exception of such well-known documents as the Paris declaration of 1856 or that of The Hague of 1899), and particularly in extenso copies of the rules regulating maritime prizes.

The Acting Secretary of State to the Russian Ambassador.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 11, 1906. MY DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: In reply to the memorandum which your excellency handed to me on the 28th ultimo, I beg to inclose

a Printed under Japan, p. 619.

herewith a list of the laws of the United States and the treaties concluded with foreign countries bearing upon the following subjects:

1. The rights of belligerents toward each other.

2. The rights and duties of neutrals in time of maritime war.

I am, etc.,

ALVEY A. ADEE.

I. Relating to prize:

[Inclosure.] Memorandum.

LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

The laws of the United States relating to prize are contained in Revised Statutes, 46134652, inclusive. (See vol. 3, U. S. Comp. Stat., pp. 3126-3139 and notes.) Sections 4616, 4620, 4630-4635, 4641-4643, 4648, and 4649 have been superseded or repealed in whole or in part by the act of March 3, 1899, chapter 413, section 13 (30 Stat., 1007), which abolished all provisions authorizing the distribution among captors of proceeds of vessels captured or sunk.

Sections 565, 695, 1006, and 1009 of the Revised Statutes (1 U. S. Comp. Stat., pp. 461, 567, 714, and 715) relate to appeals in prize cases. Revised Statutes 441 (3 Comp. Stat.. 3676) prescribes the punishment for delaying or defrauding or injuring the United States in connection with the prize property.

II. Relating to neutrality:

See Revised Statutes 4090 (2 Comp. Stat., 2770) and Revised Statutes 5281-5291 (3 Comp. Stat., 3599-3603, with notes).

TREATIES.

[References are to Treaty Volume, 1904.]

Argentine Republic, July 10, 1853, article 6 (p. 23).
Argentine Republic, July 27, 1853, article 12 (p. 28).
Bolivia, 1858, articles 15-25, 28, 29 (pp. 92-96).

Brazil, 1828, articles 8, 14-26 (pp. 108-114).

China, 1858, article 26 (p. 143).

Colombia (New Granada), 1846, articles 9, 15–28 (pp. 197–202).

Costa Rica, 1851, articles 9, 11 (pp. 218-219).

Greece, 1837, article 16 (p. 398).

Honduras, 1864, article 11 (p. 443).

Italy, 1871, articles 12-21 (pp. 453-456).

Mexico, 1848, article 22 (pp. 524-525).

Morocco, 1836, articles 2-6, 10-12, 16, 18, 24 (pp. 554–557).

Paraguay, 1859, article 13 (pp. 620-621).

Peru, 1856, articles 1, 3, 4 (pp. 627–628).

Prussia, 1785 and 1828, article 12 (p. 638).

Prussia, 1799, articles 13-17, 19–24 (pp. 638-643).

Prussia, 1828, article 13 (p. 647).

Russia, 1854, articles 1-3 (pp. 664-665).

Sweden, 1783, articles 7-19, 21-23, 25 (pp. 746–751).

Sweden and Norway, 1827, article 18 (p. 760).

Tripoli, 1805, articles 4-7, 10, 16, 17 (pp. 785-788).

EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS.

1. Instructions to Blockading Vessels during the Spanish War. (Herewith.) 2. Naval War Code, 1900. (Herewith.) (Since revoked; see pp. 11 and 12.)

NEUTRALITY OF CHINA IN THE WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN.

[NOTE. For previous correspondence see Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 722.]

The Russian Ambassador to the Secretary of State.

[Translation.]

IMPERIAL RUSSIAN EMBASSY,
Washington, January 13, 1905.

At the beginning of the war, being guided by humane considerations, the Imperial Government agreed to the proposition of the Washington Cabinet, having in view the localization of the military operations and the neutralization of the Chinese territory, and it made its decision. known to the powers by circular telegram of February 5/18 of last year. As the essential conditions of said neutralization, Russia had laid down a strict observation on the part of China of the duties imposed by neutrality, as well as an honest attitude on the part of Japan with regard to this engagement, which was undertaken in principle.

An experience of eleven months, which have elapsed since the beginning of the war, has demonstrated in an obvious manner that China was neither capable nor desirous of living up to her pledges.

Without mentioning incidents, such as that of the torpedo boat Ryeshitelni, it would be easy to cite a whole series of cases where the duties imposed by neutrality have been violated by China to the benefit of Japan. Thus it has been ascertained many times that bands of hoonhoozes (Hunghutse) operating on neutral territory were commanded by Japanese officers, just as whole detachments of these hoonhoozes have been enrolled in the Japanese army and are in the pay of the Tokyo Government, while Japanese instructors are constantly admitted among the Chinese troops stationed along the northern boundary of the Province of Chile.

It has been established, moreover, that since the beginning of the campaign the Japanese have been using the Miao-Dao Islands as a basis for their naval operations; that they import into Dalny, without hindrance, a great quantity of contraband of war coming from Chefoo and other ports on the Chinese coast, and that the government shops of Hanian (Hanyang) furnished cast iron to the Japanese army.

To all the representations and protests of the Imperial Government on occasions of this kind the Chinese ministers confined themselves to giving vague promises or to answering evasively.

Reports recently received indicate that the Chinese are no longer content with violations of neutrality of the character aforementioned, and that they are making serious preparations with the apparent intention of taking an active part in the military operations. A feverish excitement, dangerous to all whites alike, reigns among the Chinese people, and is being constantly fomented.

The Imperial Government finds it impossible not to draw the attention of the powers to the facts above-mentioned, which demonstrate clearly that their efforts toward assuring the neutrality of China have not been successful, owing to the manner of acting of the Japanese and to their intimidating pressure on the Peking Government.

Russia would, therefore, in case the present situation should continue, be obliged to consider the said neutrality from the standpoint of her own interests.

No. 253.]

The Secretary of State to the Russian Ambassador.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, January 17, 1905. EXCELLENCY: In accordance with your excellency's request, I have communicated to our minister in China the complaint of the Russian Government in regard to the various incidents which it considers as a violation of neutrality on the part of the Government of China, and have instructed him to make known to the foreign office in Peking the earnest hope of the President that China will scrupulously observe her neutral obligations, any departure from which would seriously embarrass not only China, but also the powers interested in limiting the area of hostilities.

I willingly took advantage of this occasion, as I have of similar occasions in the past, to make proof of the frank and loyal friendship which has always existed between our two nations. But I feel that I ought, with the same frankness, to call your excellency's attention to the fact that the Chinese Government declare with great earnestness that they have constantly observed that strict neutrality in the present war which is imposed upon them not only by their solemn engagements, but also by the very necessity of their independent existence, and that the Government of Japan insist that they have kept and intend to keep inviolate the pledges they made at the beginning of the war to respect the neutrality of China within the limits then agreed upon.

The President directs me to express to your excellency his earnest hope and confidence that there may not be, on the part of either belligerent, nor of a neutral power, any breach of the neutrality which the whole civilized world has agreed to respect, the violation of which could only be disastrous to all the powers concerned.

I am,

etc.,

JOHN HAY.

The Russian Ambassador to the Secretary of State.

[Translation.]

IMPERIAL EMBASSY OF RUSSIA, Washington, January 18, 1905. DEAR EXCELLENCY: I have had the honor to receive your letter dated January 17, relative to the memorandum of the Imperial Government dealing with acts contrary to the neutrality which the Chinese Government had promised to observe.

You are pleased to tell me in your letter that the Chinese Government has declared that it has constantly performed in the present war the duties imposed upon it, from its standpoint, by strict neutrality, and that it denies the existence of the facts contrary to such neutrality that are laid to its charge. No other answer could assuredly be expected from the Chinese Government, but I shall take the liberty of asking you to notice that this denial of China is met by the Imperial

« PreviousContinue »