Some Questions of International Law.

steamer with an American cargo (including flour and railway materials) from New York consigned to various Eastern ports, and the Thea, a German merchantman with a cargo of canned fish consigned to Japanese ports. At about the same time (July 25), news was received of the capture (on July 22). of the Arabia, another German vessel with an American cargo of flour and railway material consigned to Japanese ports, and the seizure of the British steamer Calcitas, with a cargo of flour and machinery destined .for Japan, on July 2Ó.1 The sinking of the Thca appears to have excited very little interest in Germany, but the sinking of the Knight Commander cre ated a storm of indignation in England which almost rivalled, if, indeed, it did not surpass that caused by the seizure of the Malacca. It was condemned on all sides as a gross outrage on the rights of neutrals and a serious violation of International Law.2 The British Government entered an energetic protest against the sinking of the Knight Commander at St. Petersburg on the ground that "it is not proper that, on the authority of the captain of a cruiser, goods alleged to be contraband of war should be taken from я merchant ship without trial.3 It is be'These cases, which involve the question of contraband, will be considered in the next issue of THE GREEN BAG. 'Even Premier Balfour stated in the House of Commons that it was "contrary to the prac tice of nations in war time," and Lord Lansdowne characterized it as a "serious breach of International Law," and an "outrage" in the House of Lords. See New York Times for July 29, 1904. 3See Premier Balfour's statement in the House of Commons, cited above. He added: "The proper course, according to international prac tice, is that any ship reasonably suspected of carrying contraband of war should be taken by the belligerent to one of its own ports, and its trial should there occur before a prize court, by which the case is to be determined. Evidently. if it is left to the captain of a cruiser to decide on its own initiative and authority whether par ticular articles carried on a ship are or are not contraband, what is not merely a practice of na tions, but what is a necessary foundation of

663

lieved that the Russian Government was re quested to make ample amends by way of apology and reparation for this "outrage," and that it received an • intimation from the British Government to the effect that a repe tition of acts similar to the seizure of the Malacca and the sinking of the Knight Com mander would not be tolerated by the English people. A strong protest against the Rus sian doctrine of contraband was also made by the British as well as by the American Gov ernments. The Russian Government in its reply ap pears to have expressed its willingness to make reparation provided it were shown to have been guilty of a violation of any princi ple of International Law, but to have stren uously insisted at the same time that there had been no such violation. It justified its right to sink the Knight Commander on the ground that the vessel contained contraband of war in the way of railway material and machinery, and because her captor was "un able to bring her to the nearest Russian port without manifest danger to the squadron, owing to her not having enough coal."* It was also urged that such action was entirely in accord with the Russian Prize Regulations аь well as the principles of International Law. Owing to the strong position taken by the British Government, the Russian Governequitable relations between belligerents and neu trals would be cut down to the root." "Under no hypothesis," said Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords, "can the Government conceive that a neutral ship could be sunk on the mere fiat of a cruiser's commanding officer, who assumed that the cargo of the vessel included articles which were contraband." 'See the report of Vice-Admiral Skrydloff in the New York Times for August 3, 1904. See also the Russian official report in London Times (weekly edition) for August 12, 1904. It is also charged that the Knight Commander did not stop until after several blank shots had been fired. (Admiral Skrydloff's report says two, the Rus sian official report says four shots were fired.) Such resistance might, if proven, be held to jus tify condemnation, but cQuld not possibly justify the sinking of the vessel except as the result of a struggle.