(5) Small boats employed in local trade. (6) Vessels of one of the belligerents in the ports of the other at the outbreak of hostilities were more often allowed a specified time in which to take cargo and depart. In the war between the United States and Spain, 1898, Spanish vessels were allowed thirty days in which to depart and were to be exempt on homeward voyage. Vessels sailing from Spain for the United States ports before the declaration of war were to be allowed to continue their voyages.1 Spain allowed vessels of the United States five days in which to depart.2 It did not prohibit the capture of such ships after departure. No provision was made for vessels sailing from the United States for Spanish ports before the declaration of war. Provisions of the Hague Conference. The Hague Convention of 1907 relative to the Status of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Outbreak of Hostilities provided for "a reasonable number of days of grace" for vessels in an enemy port at the outbreak of hostilities or entering an enemy port without knowledge of the hostilities. Enemy merchant vessels on the sea ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities may be detained without compensation or requisitioned or even destroyed on payment of compensation, due care being taken for security of persons and papers on board. These exemptions do not apply to "merchant ships whose build shows that they are intended for conversion into war-ships." 3 In the Prize Law of Japan, 1894, the following exemptions of enemy's vessels are made: "(1) Boats engaged in coast fisheries. Proclamation of April 26, 1898. 'Decree of April 23, 1898. 3 Appendix, p. 425. "(2) Ships engaged exclusively on a voyage of scientific discovery, philanthropy, or religious mission. "(3) Vessels actually engaged in cartel service, and this even when they actually have prisoners on board. "(4) Boats belonging to lighthouses." 1 (c) The transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag was sometimes resorted to as a means of changing the status of private vessels in anticipation of the outbreak Transfer of enemy vessel to a neutral flag. of war. the Declaration of London of 1909 provides: "ART. 55. The transfer of an enemy vessel to a neutral flag, effected before the opening of hostilities, is valid, unless it is proved that such transfer was made in order to evade the consequences which the enemy character of the vessel would involve. There is, however, a presumption that the transfer is void if the bill of sale is not on board in case the vessel has lost her belligerent nationality less than sixty days before the opening of hostilities. Proof to the contrary is admitted. "There is absolute presumption of the validity of a transfer effected more than thirty days before the opening of hostilities if it is absolute, complete, conforms to the laws of the countries concerned, and if its effect is such that the control of the vessel and the profits of her employment do not remain in the same hands as before the transfer. If, however, the vessel lost her belligerent nationality less than sixty days before the opening of hostilities, and if the bill of sale is not on board the capture of the vessel would not give a right to compensation." 108. Goods In general all public goods found upon the seas outside of neutral jurisdiction are liable to capture. Works of art, 1 Takahashi, Chino-Japanese, p. 178. 2 Appendix, p. 460. historical and scientific collections are sometimes held to be exempt, and probably would not be captured. Private hostile property at sea and not under the flag of a neutral is liable to capture unless such property consist of vessels, etc., exempt under § 107, (b). Contraband of war under any flag, outside of neutral territory, and destined for the enemy forces, is liable to capture. Neutral goods in the act of violating an established blockade may be captured. Previous to the Treaty of Paris in 1856 great diversity in the treatment of maritime commerce prevailed. This treaty provided that: "The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war," and "Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag." 1 Nearly all the important states of the world acceded to these provisions except the United States and Spain, and both of these powers formally proclaimed that they would observe these provisions in the war of 1898.2 The London Naval Conference of 1908-1909 agreed upon twenty-three articles relating to contraband of war. The Declaration of London, made at the conclusion of this Conference, mentions these articles, and defines more fully than hitherto the status of goods upon the sea in time of war.3 109. Submarine and Wireless Telegraph (a) The position of submarine telegraphic cables has in recent years become of great importance. Such a cable easily becomes an instrument of value in carrying on the 2 Appendix, p. 379. U. S. Proclamation, April 26, 1898; Spain, Decree of April 23, 1898. 3 Appendix, pp. 453-458. operations of war. A convention of representatives of the important states of the world met at Paris in 1884, and agreed upon rules for the protection of submarine cables.1 Article XV of this convention announces that "It is understood that the stipulations of this convention shall in no wise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." Submarine telegraphic cables. The treatment of submarine cables in time of war as determined by opinions, proclamations, etc., seems to establish that (1) Submarine telegraphic cables between points within the territory of an enemy or between a point within the territory of one belligerent and a point within the territory of the other belligerent are liable to such treatment as the exigencies of war may determine. (2) Submarine telegraphic cables between a point within the territory of an enemy and a point within the territory of a neutral are liable to interruption within the enemy's jurisdiction. (3) Submarine telegraphic cables between a point within the territory of an enemy and a point within the territory of a neutral are liable to interruption outside of neutral jurisdiction if the cables are used for war purposes. (4) Submarine telegraphic cables between points within neutral territories are not liable to interruption. Submarine telegraphic cables between a point within the territory of an enemy and a point within the territory of a neutral may be liable to interruption on the high seas if used for war purposes.2 It is generally held that such interruption 1 Treaties U. S., p. 1176 ff. 2 Captain C. H. Stockton, "Submarine Telegraph Cables in Time of War," Proceed. U. S. Naval Inst., Vol. XXIV, p. 451. See discussion, Wilson, "Submarine Telegraphic Cables in their International Relations," Lectures U. S. Naval War College, 1901; also "The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Cable Communication" to British Parliament, March, 1902. renders the belligerent interrupting the cable service, to some extent liable. The Convention of The Hague in 1907 respecting the Customs and Laws of War on Land provided: "ART. 54. Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored, and compensation fixed when peace is made." Wireless telegraph. (b) The wireless telegraph has also become in recent years an important factor in war. There has been an attempt to extend to wireless communication analogous rules to those applied to submarine cables, but these are not sufficient in all cases.1 Under the Berlin Convention of November 3, 1906, states assumed a measure of control over wireless telegraphy. A corresponding responsibility must be assumed. Russia on April 15, 1904, declared in a note addressed to the foreign states "that the lieutenant of His Imperial Majesty in the Far East has just made the following declaration: “In case neutral vessels, having on board correspondents who may communicate war news to the enemy by means of improved apparatus not yet provided for by existing conventions, should be arrested off the coast of Kwantung or within the zone of operations of the Russian fleet, such correspondents shall be regarded as spies, and the vessels provided with wireless telegraph apparatus shall be seized as lawful prize."" Objection was immediately made to the treatment of correspondents as spies, but no objection was made to the seizure of the wireless apparatus as prize. The Hague Convention of 1907 respecting Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers also provides that: 1 1 Scholz, "Drahtlose Telegraphie und Neutralität," 43. |