SUBMARINE MINES.
Neutral vessels have a right to enter the ports of a belligerent so long as they are not blockaded and they may transport supplies a and trade with such ports, subject to the nit governing traffic in contraband goods. (See CONTRABAND). Whether neutral vessels may any circumstances be destroyed by a belligerent was much discussed during the World The question was first raised during the Russo Japanese War of 1904-05 on account of the sinking by a Russian cruiser of the Km* Commander, a British merchant vessel, a por tion of whose cargo consisted of contraband goods consigned to ports in Japan. The Rus sian commander justified his act on the ground that on hccount of lack of coal and inability to spare a prize crew he could not send the ship into a home port for adjudication by a prize court, hence his only alternative was a allow the prize to go free or destroy it. The act arouied'intense Indignation in England was denounced by Lord Lansdowne as Ca very serious breach of international The Rus sian contention, he asserted, would justify the wholesale destruction of neutral ships taken be a cruiser at a distance from her base for the reason that she could not spare a prize crew or lacked a sufficient supply of coal. Sever other neutral merchantmen were destroyed by the Russians during. their war with Japan During the recent war German naval com manders have acted on the Russian theory and have generally destroyed their prizes, neutral as well as enemy vessels, because it was im possible to take them in for adjudication. the article on 'CONTRABAND for a discussion the cases of the Frye and the Maria).
In no war of the past have neutral merchant vessels suffered so heavily as in the present one. More than 800 neutral ships, American, Danish, Dutch, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese and Swedish, were sunk while peacefully navigating the high seas—in most cases by Ger man submarines or cruisers. In a few cases the destruction was due to error but in the majority of cases the reason alleged was that the vessels were carrying contraband. The naval regulations of most states authorize the destruction of prizes under certain circum stances and some of them make no distinction between enemy and neutral vessels. Thus the American instructions for blockading vessels and cruisers in 1898 (Art. 28) authorized de struction of prizes which for reasons° such as unseaworthiness, existence of infectious diseases, and lack of a prize crew could not be sent in for adjudication. Like wise, if there was imminent danger of re capture the prizes might be destroyed. The prize regulations of many other states contain somewhat similar provisions. The German
prize code authorizes destruction of neutral vessels for carrying contraband, for breach of blockade or other unneutral service, if the tak ing of the ship in would expose the captor to danger or impede the success of his operations; if, for example, the captured vessel is unsea worthy or is unable to follow the captor, or in case the captor cannot spare a prize crew or has an insufficient supply of coal or is near the enemy's coast (Art. 113). Many writers on international law however deny the right of belligerents to destroy neutral prizes. The question was discussed at length at the Second Hague Conference but on account of the di vergence of views there expressed, no agree ment was reached. It was again discussed at the London Naval Conference in 1908-09. The British delegation proposed as it had done at The Hague in 1907 that the right of belligerents to destroy neutral merchant vessels be pro hibited in all cases whatsoever and it was sup ported by the Japanese delegation. The pro posals of most of the other powers, however, recognized the right to destroy in certain excep tional cases and this view finally prevailed The rule adopted affirmed the general principle that a neutral vessel cannot be destroyed but must he taken into a prize court for adjudica tion. Nevertheless, by way of exception, the right to destroy was admitted in cases where conveyance of the prize to port would involve danger to the captor or to the success of the military operations in which he was at the time engaged (Art. 49). The effort of the British delegation to obtain an express affirmation that inability to spare a prize crew should not con stitute a sufficient justification for destruction failed to receive the approval of the Confer ence. By article 40 of the Declaration it was provided that a vessel carrying contraband is liable to condemnation, and consequently to destruction, when more than half its cargo consists of contraband goods. Not all vessels carrying contraband therefore may lawfully he destroyed. The rules adopted by the Confer ence, although representing a compromise be tween two conflicting views, undoubtedly pro vided some safeguards against arbitrary dew striation of neutral vessels. While the Declara tion has never been ratified by any government represented at the Conference the various bellig erents put it into effect at the outbreak of the present war with certain modifications, none of which, it appears, altered the rules re garding destruction of neutral vessels. See MINES, SUBMARINE; CONTRABAND; RIGHT OF SEARCH ; WAR ZONES.
Jaws W. GARNER.