SOME QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ARISING FROM THE RUSSO-JAPANESE WAR. III. The Conduct of the Powers in Respect to Their Neutral Obligations. BY AMOS S. HERSHEY, Associate Professor of European History and Politics, Indiana University. IN a previous paper attention was called to the fact that "the present Russo-Japanese War promises to present an exceptionally interesting and important field for the appli cation of certain principles of International Law, more especially of some of those mod ern rules governing the rights and duties of neutral States and individuals which are of comparatively recent origin and to the growth of which the United States has so largely contributed.'7 1 A number of delicate questions relating to the laws and principles of neutrality have already arisen; and, while we cannot hope to touch upon all such ques tions, or to enter upon an exhaustive dis cussion of any one of them within the limits of this paper, we may perhaps be able to throw some light upon doubtful points by an examination of past precedents and fun damental principles, and thus assist the reader in coming to an intelligent decision as to whether the conduct of the neutral Powers has thus far2 been in conformity with their international obligations. At the very outset of the struggle an extremely interesting question arose in re spect to the proper treatment of the sailors of the Russian vessels (the Korietz and the Variag) whose crews had been rescued by neutral cruisers belonging to various nation alities3 which were lying in the harbor of 1 See THE GREHN BAG for May, 1904. 2 June 25, 1904. 3 These were the French cruiser Pascal, the British cruiser Talbot, the Italian cruiser Elba, and the American gunboat Vicksburg. The charge made by the Russian newspapers that Captain Marshall, the commander of the Vicks burg, refused to assist in the rescue of the Rus sian sailors from the sinking Variag was admit ted to be false by the Russian Government,
Chemulpo at the time of the sinking of these vessels by the Japanese fleet on February 8th. The Japanese, who appear to have feared that the rescued sailors would be surrendered to the Russians, at first de manded their surrender as prisoners of war; but at least the British Govern ment insisted upon taking those under its charge into British territory with a view to interning them until the close of the war or until other arrangements could be made. The Japanese Government, however, ai last generously consented to their release on parole, and a wise and easy solution of what seemed at one time to be a very per plexing problem was thus made possible. In the event of an unwillingness on the part of the Japanese Government to consent to such an arrangement, the obligations of neutrality would probably have best been fulfilled by interning them in neutral territory until the close of the war, in accordance with Prem ier Balfour's suggestion in the British Par liament.4 This is now universally admitted to be the proper course to pursue in the which expressed regret that the incident had created so much feeling. The Russian Press also showed considerable irritation over the fact that the commander of the Vicksburg did not join in the protest of the captains of the other neutral vessels in the harbor of Chemulpo against the violation of Ko rean neutrality by the Japanese fleet. In so do ing it js> perhaps needless to say that the cap tain of the Vicksburg was acting clearly within his rights and that he was guilty of no impro priety or act of unfriendliness toward Russia. His conduct seems to have been entirely correct. 4 See the Evening Post for February 25th, for Balfour's reply to an inquiry in the House of Commons. The Hague Conference of 1899 failed to agree upon the proper disposition of ship wrecked, wounded, or sick belligerents, landed at a neutral port.
