President's proclamation of April 26, 1898, in order to provide against undue hardships in the beginning of the war, made the following exceptions:

4. Spanish merchant vessels in any ports or places within the United States, shall be allowed till May 21, 1898, inclusive, for loading their cargoes and departing from such ports or places; and such Spanish merchant vessels, if met at sea by any United States ship, shall be permitted to continue their voyage, if, on examination of their papers, it shall appear that their cargoes were taken on board before the expiration of the above term: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall apply to Spanish vessels having on board any officer in the military or naval service of the enemy, or any coal (except such as may be necessary for their voyage), or any other article prohibited or contraband of war, or any dispatch of or to the Spanish Government.

5. Any Spanish merchant vessel which, prior to April 21, 1898, shall have sailed from any foreign port bound for any port or place in the United States, shall be permitted to enter such port or place, and to discharge her cargo, and afterwards forthwith to depart without molestation; and any such vessel, if met at sea by any United States ship, shall be permitted to continue her voyage to any port not blockaded.

The following clauses of General Order 492 of the Navy Department contain the material applying to this subject:

3. Neutral vessels are entitled to notification of a blockade before they can be made prize for its attempted violation. The character of this notification is not material. It may be actual, as by a vessel of the blockading force, or constructive, as by a proclamation of the government maintaining the blockade, or by common notoriety. If a neutral vessel can be shown to have had notice of the blockade in any way, she is good prize and should be sent in for adjudication; but, should formal notice not have been given, the rule of constructive knowledge arising from notoriety should be construed in a manner liberal to the neutral.

4. Vessels appearing before a blockaded port, having sailed without notification, are entitled to actual notice by a blockading vessel. They should be boarded by an officer, who should enter in the ship's log the fact of such notice, such entry to include the name of the blockading vessel giving notice, the extent of the blockade, the date and place, verified by his official signature. The vessel is then to be set free; and should she again attempt to enter the same or any other blockaded port as to which she has had notice she is good prize.

7. In accordance with the rule adopted by the United States in the existing war with Spain, neutral vessels found in port at the time of

the establishment of a blockade will, unless otherwise ordered by the United States, be allowed thirty days from the establishment of the blockade to load their cargoes and depart from such port.

Article 16.

Neutral vessels in the military or naval service of the enemy, or under the control of the enemy for military or naval purposes, are subject to capture or destruction.

What should be done in case a neutral vessel within neutral territory is found to be transmitting messages to the enemy by means of wireless telegraphy?

Article 16 covers the rule for neutral vessels within the field of belligerent action. The code does not cover the field of peaceful action which neutral waters are ever supposed to be.

In case a neutral vessel within neutral territory is found to be transmitting messages to the enemy by wireless telegraphy the vessel is guilty of unneutral service and is liable to the penalties consequent upon such service when within the field of belligerent action, but so long as she remains within neutral waters while the service is unchanged so far as the neutral vessel is concerned, no belligerent act may be performed against the neutral vessel in neutral territory. The act should be reported to the government in whose jurisdiction the vessel is with a request that the vessel be restrained and it should also be reported to the home government for diplomatic consideration.

It would be permissible to use any means to intercept the messages outside of neutral jurisdiction. The case is somewhat parallel to that of submarine telegraphy. The international law status of wireless telegraphy is as yet undefined. Doubtless agreements in regard to the use of this means of communication must be made.

Article 17.

Vessels of war of the United States may take shelter during war in a neutral port subject to the limitations that the authorities of the port may prescribe as to the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the port at any one time. This shelter, which is allowed

20681-5

by comity of nations, may be availed of for the purpose of evading the enemy, from stress of weather, or to obtain supplies or repairs that the vessel needs to enable her to continue her voyage in safety and to reach the nearest port of her own country.

(a) Would it be a ground for protest if a neutral state prescribed other limitations than those in regard to "the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the port at any one time?"

It would be no ground for protest if a neutral prescribed other limitations than those in regard to "the number of belligerent vessels to be admitted into the port at any one time." The neutral port regulations are matters within neutral competence, as is shown by Article 18 and as is affirmed by all writers on international law.

(b) How should the words "to continue her voyage in safety" be interpreted? Do these words refer to the clause "to obtain supplies" in line 7 of Article 17?

"To continue her voyage in safety" must be interpreted with reference to the last clause of Article 18, which forbids increase in "armament military stores, or in the number of the crew of a vessel of war."

The wording is too free according to the generally accepted standards as "safety" may be made to apply to security from enemies as well as from the elements of nature. The generally admitted repairs and supplies are those necessary for the continuance of the voyage to the nearest home port with reference to the risks due to natural causes.

Further, the supplies are by the last clause of Article 18 limited to those not military in their nature. “To continue her voyage in safety" refers to one or both of the words "supplies" or "repairs" with the abovementioned restrictions on the nature of the supplies.

Article 18.

Such vessel or vessels must conform to the regulations prescribed by the authorities of the neutral port with respect to the place of anchorage, the limitation of the stay of the vessel in port, and the time to elapse before

sailing in pursuit or after the departure of a vessel of the enemy.

No increase in the armament, military stores, or in the number of the crew of a vessel of war of the United States shall be attempted during the stay of such vessel in a neutral port.

Might it not often be necessary to violate the provisions of the last sentence of Article 18 in order to obtain supplies or repairs sufficient to enable a vessel "to continue her voyage in safety?"

The last sentence in Article 18 is in accord with the generally accepted opinion of the rule of correct action in a neutral port. The phrase "to continue her voyage in safety" should be interpreted as above stated with reference to safety from the dangers of the sea rather than dangers from enemies. The Netherlands issued the following during the war between the United States and Spain: "It is forbidden to supply arms or ammunition to the ships of war or privateers of the powers at war, as also to render them any assistance whatever in the increasing of their crews, arming, or equipment, and in general to voluntarily perform any act that might endanger the neutrality of the state."

Article 19.

A neutral vessel carrying the goods of an enemy is, with her cargo, exempt from capture, except when carrying contraband of war or endeavoring to evade a blockade.

Should the words "or guilty of unneutral service" be added after the word "blockade" in the last line of Article 19?

With the increase in the forms of service which neutral vessels may render, they should certainly have no more liberal treatment than mail steamers in Article 20, for mail steamers are or may be under a partial government control, and these are liable to detention for "violation of the laws of war with respect to contraband blockade, or unneutral service."

The words "or guilty of unneutral service" should certainly be added to Article 19.

Article 20.

A neutral vessel carrying hostile dispatches, when sailing as a dispatch vessel practically in the service of the enemy, is liable to seizure. Mail steamers under neutral flags carrying such dispatches in the regular and customary manner, either as a part of their mail in their mail bags, or separately as a matter of accommodation and without special arrangement or remuneration, are not liable to seizure and should not be detained, except upon clear grounds of suspicion of a violation of the laws of war with respect to contraband, blockade, or unneutral service, in which case the mail bags must be forwarded with seals unbroken.

(a) Would the transmission of hostile dispatches received by a neutral vessel on the high sea make that vessel liable to seizure; if so, for how long a time?

Dana, in note 228 to Wheaton's International Law, says:

Suppose a neutral vessel to transmit signals between two portions of a fleet engaged in hostile combined operations, and not in sight of each other. She is doubtless liable to condemnation. It is immaterial whether these squadrons are at sea or in ports of their own country or in neutral ports, or how far they are apart or how important the signals may be to the general results of the war, or whether the neutral transmits them directly or through a repeating neutral vessel. The nature of the communication establishes its final destination and it is immaterial how far the delinquent carries it on its way. The reason of the condemnation is the nature of the service in which the neutral is engaged.

The neutral vessel transmitting hostile dispatches is liable to seizure as engaged in unneutral service. Taylor says:

No overt act could be performed by a neutral in aid of a belligerent more clearly unlawful than the transmission of signals or the carrying of messages between two portions of a fleet engaged in concert in hostile operations, and not in sight of each other. It makes no difference whether such fleets or squadrons are in ports of their own country, in neutral ports, or on the high seas, or whether such signals are transmitted by the neutral directly or through a repeating neutral vessel. No matter whether such communications be verbal or written, important or unimportant to the general results of the war, as the criminality of the act depends alone upon the nature of the service in which the neutral is engaged. The same principle extends to signalling or bearing of messages between a