at Vladivostok where much-needed neutral steamers were seized, declared confiscated and used, compensation being paid at some subsequent date in some cases when the 'judgment' of the Vladivostok Court was reversed. This action was obviously illegal: but it was one that no naval officer would hesitate to take, given the need of the vessels. The demands of expediency must override any legal considerations agreed to in time of peace.
Then there is the question of neutral waters, referred to in the case of the Chemulpo affair. It is quite illegal for a warship to enter neutral waters for the purposes of advantage in an action, but saving the presence of a neutral force to ensure the sanctity of such waters what ship would hesitate to ignore all laws on the matter if it had anything to gain thereby? It is quite illegal for submarines to lie in neutral waters awaiting victims, and at the close of the Russo-Japanese war proposals to frame some regulations under this particular head were mooted. Some day they are likely to take shape and be agreed to by every nation; but what submarine will be deterred from entering unwatched neutral waters on that account?
It is illegal to lay mines in the high-seas or anywhere outside the three-mile limit. The knowledge of this is an almost direct incentive to laying them further out to sea, where they. might be less expected. A mine laid where the enemy expects to find one is a perfectly useless weapon. It may be that in any case,
