Ces navires ne peuvent, de même, prendre du combustible que pour gagner le port le plus proche de leur propre pays. Ils peuvent, d'ailleurs, prendre le combustible nécessaire pour compléter le plein de leurs soutes proprement dites, quand ils se trouvent dans les pays neutres qui ont adopté ce mode de détermination du combustible à fournir.

Le ravitaillement et la prise de combustible ne donnent pas droit à prolonger la durée légale du séjour. Toutefois, si, d'après la loi de la Puissance neutre, ces navires reçoivent du charbon que 24 heures après leur arrivée, cette durée est prolongée de 24 heures.

(Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p. 505.) The last paragraph of Article 19 was after discussion amended as follows:

Si, d'après la loi de la Puissance neutre, les navires ne reçoivent du charbon que vingt-quatre heures après leur arrivée, la durée legal de leur séjour est prolongée de vingt-quatre heures.

Report of American delegation.-It is proper to reprint here the clauses of the report of the United States delegation to the Second Hague Conference so far as this report bears upon the subject under consideration.

The proposition advanced by England represented the strict views of neutral rights and duties which are held by States maintaining powerful naval establishments, supplemented by a widely distributed system of coaling stations and ports of call, in which their merchant vessels could find convenient refuge at the outbreak of war and which enable them to carry on operations at sea quite independently of a resort to neutral ports for the procurement of coal or other supplies or for purposes of repair. As the policy of the United States Government has generally been one of strict neutrality, the delegation found itself in sympathy with this policy in many, if not most, of its essential details. France for many years past has taken a somewhat different view of its neutral obligations, and has practiced a liberal, rather than a strict, neutrality. The views of France in that regard have received some support from the Russian delegation and were favored to some extent by Germany and Austria.

It was constantly borne in mind by the delegation, in all deliberations in committee, that the United States is, and always has been, a permanently neutral power, and has always endeavored to secure the greatest enlargement of neutral privileges and immunities. Not only are its interests permanently neutral, but it is so fortunately situated, in respect to its military and naval establishments, as to be able to enforce respect for such neutral rights and obligations as flow from its essential rights of sovereignty and independence. (Senate Doc. No. 444, 60th Cong., 1st sess., p. 50.)

COALING IN SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR.

37

Coaling in the Spanish-American War.-In a telegram from Mr. Hay, the American ambassador in London, of June 29, 1898, when the Spanish fleet was supposed to be bound for the East, it was said:

British Government concludes Camara can not remain at Port Said more than 24 hours, except in case of necessity, and can not coal there if he has coal enough to take him back to Cadiz, which appears to be the case. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 983.)

It was said of the Spanish fleet bound westward that it also might find it difficult to obtain coal.

When, in the latter part of May, 1898, it was rumored that the Spanish armored squadron had sailed or was about to sail to the United States and might stop at the Azores for coal, the minister of the United States at Lisbon was instructed to protest against its coaling at those islands, on the ground that, as they lay entirely outside the route from Spain to the Spanish West Indies, such an act would convert the Portuguese territory into a base of hostile operations against the United States. (7 Moore, Int. Law Digest, 945.)

Prof. Moore quotes from a letter of the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the Navy of August 5, 1898, in regard to coaling of United States ships of war in Mexican waters:

Before the outbreak of hostilities the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. was permitted, under its agreement with the Mexican Government, to furnish supplies of coal to United States men-of-war at Acapulco. During the war the Mexican Government placed limitations on the supply of coal to belligerent vessels in its ports and made no exception as to United States vessels at Acapulco. The Department of State abstained from addressing any representation to Mexico on the subject, on the ground that as it had "on numerous recent occasions asked of Mexico the strict execution of its neutral duties," it was "not disposed, upon the strength of an agreement between the Pacific Mail Steamship Co. and the Mexican Government, made before the war, to insist that public ships of the United States may now be allowed to take coal without limit in a Mexican port." (7 Moore, Int. Law Digest, p. 946.)

Coaling in the Russo-Japanese War. The proclamation of the Governor of Malta of August 12, 1904, declares that the provisions in regard to coaling—

shall not be understood as having any application in case of a belligerent fleet proceeding either to the seat of war or to any position or positions on the line of route with the object of intercepting neutral ships on suspicion of carrying contraband of war, and that such fleet shall not be permitted to make use in any way of any port, roadstead,

or waters subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty for the purpose of coaling, either directly from the shore or from colliers accompanying such fleet, whether vessels of such fleet present themselves to any such port or roadstead or within the said waters at the same time or successively, and second, that the same practice shall be pursued with reference to single belligerent ships of war proceeding for purpose of belligerent operations as above defined. (Naval War College, International Law Situations, 1906, p. 78; also the London Times, Aug. 23, 1904.)

The notes issued by the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs February 10 and 12, 1904, provide that coal shall be granted to belligerent ships of war only on written authorization from the port authorities specifying the amount, and that the port authorities shall grant such authorization "only after a written statement from the ship's commander shall have been obtained, stating the destination of his vessel and the quantity of coal already on board."

The royal ordinance of Sweden and Norway of April 30, 1904, interdicts "to war vessels of the belligerents entry to the territorial waters within the fixed submarine defenses, as well as to the following ports" (4 Swedish, 6 Norwegian). Entrance is accorded to vessels of war to other ports under the following rules:

They are forbidden to obtain any supplies except stores, provisions, and means for repairs necessary for the subsistence of the crew or for the security of navigation. In regard to coal, they can only purchase the necessary quantity to reach the nearest nonblockaded national port, or, with the consent of the authorities of the King, a neutral destination. Without special permission the same vessel will not be permitted to again purchase coal in a port or roadstead of Sweden or Norway within three months after the last purchase. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 31.)

The range of proclamations is from almost unlimited freedom of entrance to prohibition of entrance except under force majeure.

Coaling outside of port, but within neutral waters.— Situation IV of the Naval War College International Law Situations of 1908 was as follows:

Coaling in neutral waters.—While there is war between States X and Y and other States are neutral, a war vessel of State X coals from a collier just off the coast within three miles of State Z. A month later

HAGUE RESTRICTIONS.

39

the same war vessel enters a port of State Z and requests a reasonable supply of coal. This is refused, on the ground that the vessel has taken coal within the waters of State Z within three months.

The conclusion as a result of the conferences and of the consideration of the principles involved was that the contention of State Z under the circumstances was correct.

The Hague Convention on maritime jurisdiction.—The Hague Convention of 1907, respecting the Lights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War, provides:

ART. 1. 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.

*

*

*

*

*

ART. 5. Belligerents are forbidden to use neutral ports and waters as a base of naval operations against their adversaries.

It is evident that the aim of these regulations is to prevent the use of neutral waters as a base of operations.

It is also evident from Article 19 of the above Convention that a State may allow coal sufficient only to reach the nearest home port, or, if it adopts the alternative method, then sufficient to fill the coal bunkers.

It is unquestionably within the power of a State to adopt either method.

Coaling within a port, whether from an accompanying collier or from a collier sent to the port to meet a fleet, would be acts of like nature, because taking place within the area clearly under the immediate jurisdiction of the port authorities.

Dr. Higgins on amount of coal.—Dr. A. Pearce Higgins, at present lecturer on international law at the British Royal Naval War College, summarizes the discussion at The Hague upon Article 19 of the Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War so far as it relates to the amount of coal to be supplied in a neutral port as follows:

The second paragraph deals with the supply of fuel and gave rise to lengthy discussions. The British proposal (Article 17) said that the

quantity of provisions or fuel (munitions, vivres ou combustibles) taken on board in neutral jurisdiction should in no case exceed that which was necessary to enable it to reach the nearest port of its own country; the Japanese proposal added "or some nearer neutral destination;” the Spanish proposal was to the same effect. On the other hand it was contended by Germany, France, and Russia that belligerents should be allowed to take in enough fuel to complete their normal supply in time of peace. These two alternatives were considered by the examining committee on the 11th and 12th of September, 1907, and again at the full meeting of the third committee on the 4th of October, 1907. Admiral Siegel (Germany) contended that there was a great difficulty in arriving at the quantity of fuel necessary to take a ship to its nearest home port. It was necessary to ascertain what was the nearest port, what was its distance, the most economical speed, which would necessarily vary with the quality of the coal supplied, the state of the boilers, etc., the condition of the weather and a consequent lengthening of the voyage. These were burdens which should not be placed on neutrals. In support of the British proposal, Sir Ernest Satow argued that a neutral had no right to give assistance to a belligerent to reach his adversary; that the only reason why coal should be given to a belligerent ship was to prevent it from becoming a helpless derelict on the ocean; sufficient should therefore be given to enable it to preserve its existence, and this was the origin of the rule of the nearest home port, a rule which had been accepted by nearly all States which had issued rules on the subject. The Japanese delegate preferred the suppression of the provisions relating to coal in the Article to the acceptance of the German proposal but this was rejected by 10 to 4. The Russian proposal combined both tests as alternatives as stated in the second paragraph and this was carried in the examining committee by 11 votes, with 3 abstentions. (The Hague Peace Conferences, p. 475.)

Prof. Oppenheim's opinion.-Oppenheim maintains

that

A neutral must prevent belligerent men-of-war admitted to his ports or maritime belt from taking in more provisions and coal than are necessary to bring them safely to the nearest port of their home State, for otherwise he would enable them to cruise on the open sea near his maritime belt for the purpose of attacking enemy vessels. And it must be specially observed that it matters not whether the man-of-war concerned intends to buy provisions and coal on land or to take them in from transport vessels which accompany or meet her in neutral waters. (2 International Law, p. 355.)

Application of discussion to Situation I.-(a) Right to regulate supply of fuel.—It is evident from practice and it is in accord with the Hague Convention that neutral powers "should issue specific enactments regulating the consequences of the status of neutrality whenever