naval operations were all provided with colonies, questions could hardly spring from the use of foreign possessions as a source of supplies. Under the altered conditions of warfare matters are changed. When supplies can be meted out in accordance with the necessities of the case, to permit more to be obtained than can, in a reasonably liberal sense of the word, be called necessary for reaching a place of safety, is to provide the belligerent with means of aggressive action; and consequently to violate the essential principles of neutrality. (Ibid., p. 606.)

The States of the world represented at the Hague Conference in 1907 did not at that time, however, come up to Hall's standard in regard to limitation upon the supply of coal.

Opinions of continental writers.-Certain continental writers, inclining to less restriction upon the supply of coal than that proposed in the British and some other declarations, and particularly in the declaration of the Governor of Malta, have criticized these.

Such writers maintain that, while coal is essential for aggressive fighting on the part of a vessel of war, for a neutral to furnish coal is analogous to the furnishing of sails, masts, tar, and similar supplies to a ship of war before the days of steam navigation; that such supplies afforded to the belligerents whenever sought did not imply any violation of neutrality, as they were for purposes of navigation rather than for purposes of hostile combat. It is also maintained that, since the navigation of the seas is free to all, acts making navigation possible are not violations of neutrality but legitimate.

The claim is also made that coal is merely one form of supply. This is essential food for the engines while other supplies are essential for the personnel. Some say it would be as reasonable to limit one as the other; that to permit the repair of an engine and to forbid the supply of coal to run the engine is a manifest absurdity; that while it may be and is generally forbidden to sell arms for the crew of a ship of war, food and drink may be procured in a neutral port; similarly while a ship of war may not purchase armament and war materials, she may properly obtain such supply of coal as is necessary.

The fact that the belligerents may not reap equal advantages from the possibility of taking coal in a neutral

CONTINENTAL OPINIONS.

27

port is not due to any act of the neutral, but due to conditions which both belligerents might fully understand before entering upon the hostilities. To offer as a reason for refusing coal the argument that one belligerent might use the neutral port more for coaling would be equally applicable to most other permitted actions.

M. de Lapradelle who has particularly written upon this side of the question, says:

La neutralité ne doit pas faire à l'un des belligérants une autre condition qu'à l'autre. Mais la nature peut faire qu'entre eux les possibilitiés d'user de ces mêmes conditions soient différentes. Si les neutres devaient modifier leur droit toutes les fois que ces conditions changent, il n'y aurait plus de droit de la neutralité. Tel, que l'ennemi pense affamer, peut avoir plus besoin de vivres: est-ce une raison pour les déclarer contrebande de guerre? Tel peut avoir plus besoin que l'autre de s'arrêter dans les ports neutres; est-ce une raison pour les fermer? Tel peut avoir plus besoin de charbon; est-ce une raison pour le refuser? Là encore, dans le raisonnement adverse, il existe une confusion entre l'inégalité des conditions géographiques et l'inégalité des conditions militaires. Les unes et les autres ne doivent, en aucune manière, être modifiées, soit par l'action, soit par l'omission des États neutres. Les conditions militaires comprennent les unités de combat, l'armement, l'équipement; il n'est pas possible aux États neutres, ni d'en changer, ni d'en laisser, dans leur souveraineté, changer le rapport. Les conditions géographiques comprennent la proximité de tel point, l'éloignement de tel autre, la necessité de passer, de tel ou tel point, par tel ou tel autre. La faculté de relâcher dans les ports neutres et celle de prende du charbon s'y incorporent (1), car, dans l'état actuel de la navigation, elles sont les conditions mêmes de l'usage normal de la mer. L'un des belligérants se plaint-il que l'autre puisse venir l'attaquer par mer, en relâchant et en charbonnant dans les ports neutres? Autant se plaindre que, la terre les séparant, la mer ait comblé la distance, car la mer ne se conçoit pas sans les facultés naturelles à la navigation, et les conditions de la navigation ne se conçoivent pas autrement qu'en rapport avec les progrès de l'invention contemporaine. (La nouvelle thèse du refuse de charbon aux belligérents dans les eaux neutres, 11 Revue Générale de Droit Int. Public, 1904, p. 553).

Opinion of Prof. Hershey.-Prof. Hershey, writing of the coaling of the Russian fleet during the Russo-Japanese War, says:

Without the facilities for coal afforded it in neutral ports and waters (mainly French), it could not possibly have succeeded in circumnavigating the greater part of Europe, Asia, and Africa, with the avowed purpose of attacking the Japanese fleet. Not only have the French

"instructions" proven lamentably insufficient for the purpose of maintaining a real neutrality, but even a strict observance of the British and American rules would not have prevented that fleet from advancing from one neutral port to another by means of coal obtained at a previous port, or from using neutral coasts and waters as bases of supply, or as channels of transportation, even though the fleet itself had remained outside the three-mile limit. Nothing short of the total prohibitions contained in the proclamation of the Governor of Malta would seem to be sufficient for the maintenance of a strict or real neutrality. (International Law and Diplomacy of the Russo-Japanese War, p. 202.)

State Department opinion. The following memorandum was given to the minister of the Netherlands by Secretary Hay in 1904:

[Memorandum.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 16, 1904.

The minister of the Netherlands inquires whether the declaration of Japan that coal is contraband of war entails any restrictions of the rule that coal may be supplied to a man-of-war of a belligerent (in a neutral port) in sufficient quantity to reach the belligerent's nearest home port.

By the general rule of international law neutrals are free to sell contraband of war, even arms and ammunition, to a belligerent, subject always to the risk of seizure by the other belligerent. The recently issued neutrality proclamation of the President merely limits the right of citizens of the United States to sell coal within the jurisdiction of the United States to a belligerent war ship to a certain amount, namely, enough to take the vessel to its nearest home port.

As the United States Government understands the matter, the Japanese proclamation merely declares that coal is contraband of war, the effect being to serve notice that where Japan finds coal being carried to her enemy by neutrals she will seize it. This does not appear to conflict with the declaration in the President's proclamation, which has application within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The receipt was acknowledged as follows:

WASHINGTON, May 3, 1904. MR. SECRETARY OF STATE: The royal legation has not failed to forward to the Government of the Queen the memorandum relating to the Japanese declaration about the sale of coal during the actual war in the far Orient which accompanied the note which your excellency kindly addressed to it on February 16 last.

HAGUE ARTICLE ON COALING.

29

I have been instructed to transmit to the Government of the United States the thanks of the Royal Government for the memorandum of which it has taken notice with great interest and in which it fully

concurs.

I take this occasion, etc.,

(U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 523.)

VAN SWINDEREN.

The Hague Convention of 1907.-The amount of coal which can be taken on board by a belligerent vessel in a neutral port is specified in the Hague Convention of 1907 concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. Of this provision the United States delegation in its report says:

Article 19 is an extremely important one. It provides that: “ART. 19. Belligerent vessels of war can not revictual in neutral ports and roads except to complete their normal supplies in time of peace.

“Neither can these vessels take on board fuel except to reach the nearest port of their own country. They may, however, take on the fuel necessary to fill their bunkers, properly so called, when they are in the waters of neutral countries which have adopted this method of determining the amount of fuel to be furnished.

"If, according to the rules of the neutral Power, vessels can only receive coal 24 hours after their arrival, the lawful duration of their sojourn shall be prolonged 24 hours.

"ART. 20. Belligerent vessels of war which have taken on board coal in the port of a neutral Power, can not renew their supply within three months in a port of the same Power."

The great Powers of the world are susceptible of being grouped into two classes in the matter of neutral policy. England, having great naval power, supplemented by an extensive system of coaling stations and commercial ports, has always favored and practiced a policy of strict neutrality. France, less powerful at sea, having few naval stations and with few distant colonial possessions, has been more liberal in the enforcement of its neutral obligations, and has allowed considerable aid to be extended to belligerent vessels in its ports. As England has treated both belligerents with impartial strictness, France has treated them with impartial liberality. With this view Russia and, to some extent, Germany and Austria are in sympathy. As has been seen, the policy of the United States has been in the main similar to that of Great Britain.

In the matter of coal the English delegation proposed that the amount of coal which a belligerent vessel might obtain in a neutral port should be restricted to quarter bunkers. The substantial operation of this rule would be that any public armed vessel that entered a neutral port short of coal would have to be interned until the close

of the war, as it would be impossible, in a majority of cases, to reach a home port with so meagre an allowance of coal as quarter-bunker capacity. This proposition was rejected, as were a number of suggestions based upon bunker capacity, condition of bottoms, etc., which were so complicated as to be practically impossible in their application.

The result was to reach the compromise which is stated in article 19, as to which it may be said that the liberal States have yielded rather more than those whose policy is one of strict neutrality. The article represents, it would seem, the most satisfactory conclusion possible for the Conference to reach. (Senate Doc. No. 444, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 52.)

Discussion at The Hague in 1907.-The discussion at The Hague in 1907 showed that there were two distinct points of view in regard to belligerent coaling in a neutral port. One party claims that the determination of the amount on any such basis as the estimate of the number of tons necessary to reach the nearest home port is from the nature of the case impossible because of variations due to the conditions of ship, boilers, weather, quality of coal, etc. The other party claims that to allow the belligerent to take coal sufficient to fill the bunkers built to carry fuel would practically make the neutral coaling port a base for the belligerent. Sir Ernest Satow, representing Great Britain, proposed to insert the following article:

Une Puissance neutre ne devra pas permettre sciemment à un navire de guerre d'un belligérant se trouvant dans sa juridiction de prendre à bord des munitions, vivres ou combustibles pour aller à la rencontre de l'ennemi ou pour se livrer à des opérations de guerre. (Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix, Tome III, p. 636.)

The representatives of Spain and Japan approved. Germany, United States, Denmark, France, Norway, Netherlands, Russia, and Sweden disapproved. Brazil, Italy, and Turkey refrained from voting. This vote was taken to show the attitude of the committee upon this restriction. It is evident that it was not favorable to placing upon the neutral any responsibility for determining for what end the ship may be taking supplies or coal and that the determination of the amount of coal within the allowed period is the main matter for the neutral.