"In order that it may be able to refute the charges that the Portuguese authorities are allowing the free passage through this port of European volunteers for the Republican armies, the local government, some time ago and while I was in Pretoria, decided that all passengers passing through this port and bound for the Transvaal should, before receiving their Portuguese passports to cross the frontier, make oath, before their respective consuls, that they desired to proceed to the Transvaal to engage in some particular business, and not with the intention to take part in the war. As a good many Americans are now passing through this port I had some of these oaths printed, and enclose a copy for your inspection. "The American wishing to proceed to the Transvaal subscribes to this oath in duplicate. One copy I retain here on file, and the other is filed in the archives of the Government of Lourenço Marquez." Mr. Hollis, consul at Lourenço Marquez, to Mr. Hill, Assist. Sec. of State, April 4, 1900, MSS. Dept. of State. The Department of State took the view that the Portuguese authorities had the right, in execution of their neutrality laws and regulations, to require the oath to be made. Mr. Cridler, Third Assist. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hollis, No. 58, May 12, 1900, 173 MS. Inst. Consuls, 341; same to same, No. 66, Aug. 8, 1900, id. 592. The consul was instructed that it was not proper for him to charge a fee for the issuance of the neutrality certificates required by the Portuguese Government. When the war between Great Britain and the Transvaal began, free passage was given by Portugal to British troops through Beira to Rhodesia. This permission was based on the Anglo-Portuguese treaty of June 11, 1891. By Art. XII. of this treaty Portugal a London Standard, April 27, 1900. engages to permit and to facilitate transit for all persons and goods. of every description over the waterways of the Zambesi, the Shiré, the Pungive, the Busi, the Limpopo, the Sabi, and their tributaries, and also over the landways which supply means of communication where these rivers are not navigable." By Art. XIV. Portugal agrees to grant absolute freedom of passage between the British sphere of influence and Pungive Bay for all merchandise of every description, and to give the necessary facilities for the improvement of the means of communication," and also "to construct a railway between Pungive and the British sphere." 66 83 Br. & For. State Papers, 1890, 1891, 27, 35, 36, 38; Hertslet's Com- The question "whether a neutral state may permit a belligerent force (4) TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE. § 1304. After the destruction of the Spanish fleet at Manila in May, 1898, Admiral Dewey obtained possession of the Philippines end of the cable of the Hongkong and Manila Telegraph Company, which held its concession from Spain on condition that it should not send telegrams when forbidden by the Spanish Government to do so. Acting under this clause, the Spanish Government ordered the company to cease working the cable at Hongkong, and the company was obliged to suspend operations. Under these circumstances, the United States sought from the British Government permission for the landing at Hongkong of a new cable from the Philippines, to be constructed by an American company. Lord Salisbury replied, after consultation with the law officers of the Crown, that it had been decided that the British Government was not at liberty to comply with the request of the United States. The Marquis of Tweeddale, president of the Hongkong and Manila Telegraph Company, sought permission from the Spanish Government to take telegrams from both sides, but this was at first refused, and he therefore declined to yield to solicitations for the use of the cable by the United States, unless secured by the latter by a formal guarantee against all losses which might result, including those arising from the forfeiture of the company's conces sion. On July 11, 1898, however, the London representative of the Spanish telegraph department informed Lord Tweeddale that he was authorized by the Spanish Government to take the necessary steps "to obtain complete neutralization of the cable, giving you entire independence and freedom from interference on the part of the one or the other of the belligerents, on condition that your office at Manila is considered neutral territory to give free course to all telegrams official, private, in plain or secret language, whether in code or in figures, without distinction, by senders of all nationalities or addressed to the same." On the 12th of July the American ambassador at London was instructed by his Government to "postpone consideration" of this proposal for the time being. For. Rel. 1898, 976-980. On August 17, 1898, after the conclusion of the armistice between the United States and Spain, the American ambassador in London was instructed that the United States did not object to the restoration of the cable, and that the French ambassador had been requested to express the hope that Spain would not object. On August 22 notice was received by the United States that the cable was repaired and open for business. (For. Rel. 1898, 980.) On May 2, 1898, the consul of the United States at Barbados, British West Indies, telegraphed that the governor of the colony, under instructions from the home Government, controlled the cable office and would not permit messages to be sent out relative to the movements of war ships, whether Spanish or American. Mr. Adee, Second Assist. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, May 3, 1898, 228 "A neutral state is, no doubt, on principle, similarly bound to prevent the use of its territory for the reception and transmission of messages by wireless telegraphy, in furtherance of belligerent interests; and China seems to have accordingly destroyed, though tardily, the electrical installment placed by the Russians in the neighborhood of Chefoo, for the maintenance of communications between the beleaguered fortress of Port Arthur and the outer world." Neutral Duties in a Maritime War, by Thomas Erskine Holland, Proceedings of the British Academy, II. 3. Perhaps the learned author of the above passage did not intend to convey the idea that it would be the duty of a neutral state to prevent a private company engaged in transmitting wireless messages from receiving and transmitting any such message in furtherance of belligerent interests. The point in the particular case to which he refers 'was the establishment of a station in neutral territory by one of the belligerents, an act which the neutral undoubtedly may be required to use due diligence to prevent. With regard to the transmission of telegraphic messages by private companies regularly engaged in such business, there would appear to be no difference between the use of wireless telegraphy and the use of land lines or submarine cables. (5) COAL SUPPLIES, § 1305. Mr. Seward complained that the governor of Maranham, Brazil, allowed the "pirate" Sumter to enter that port to receive shelter for an indefinite period and to procure supplies by purchase of coal and provisions in unlimited quantities, and that she used the supplies and provisions so obtained in making a voyage across the Atlantic, in which she renewed her depredations on American merchant vessels. The Brazilian Government justified the conduct of the governor of Maranham. The discussion drifted into an affirmation by Brazil and a denial by the United States that the Sumter was entitled to belligerent rights, the question of the quantity of coal and supplies taken being neglected in the controversion of this point. Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Webb, min. to Brazil, No. 20, March 18, 1862, MS. Inst. Brazil, XV. 319; same to same, No. 21, April 3, 1862, id. 325. It was maintained by the United States at Geneva and denied by Great Britain that an undue indulgence was shown to Confederate cruisers in the extent to which they were permitted to obtain supplies of coal in British ports. Count Selopis took the view that the question of coal supply could be treated only as connected with the second rule of Article VI. of the treaty of Washington, which declares that a neutral government is bound not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies. He would not say that the mere fact of having allowed a greater amount of coal than was necessary to enable the vessel to reach the nearest port of its own country constituted in itself a ground for an indemnity. But when he saw the Florida choose for her field of action the stretch of sea between the Bahama Archipelago and Bermuda to cruise there at ease, and the Shenandoah choose Melbourne and Hobsons Bay for the purpose, which was immediately carried out, of going to the Arctic seas to attack whaling vessels, he could not but regard supplies of coal in quantities sufficient for such purposes as infringements of the rule above mentioned. Mr. Adams expressed the opinion that the safest course in any critical emergency would be to deny altogether a supply of coal to a belligerent vessel, except perhaps in the case of positive distress. Such a policy would, however, he said, be regarded as selfish and illiberal and would entail upon powers enormous and continual expense for the maintenance of coaling stations. He thought that a supply of coal would involve no responsibility to the neutral when it was made in response to a demand presented in good faith with the single object of satisfying a legitimate purpose openly assigned; but that the contrary would be the case if it was made either tacitly or explicitly with the view to promote or complete the execution of a hostile act. He therefore thought that the only way to determine the responsibility of a neutral in such a case was "by an examination of the evidence to show the intent of the grant in any specific case.” Sir Alexander Cockburn contended that the term "base of naval operations" had no relation to the case of a vessel which, while cruising against an enemy's ship, put into a port, and, after obtaining necessary supplies, again pursued her course, but that it referred to the use of a port or of waters as a place from which a fleet or ship might watch an enemy and sally forth to attack him, with the possibility of falling back upon the port or waters in question for fresh supplies or shelter or a renewal of operations. Mr. Staempfli, in his opinion in the case of the Sumter, held that the permission given to that vessel did not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for charging the British authorities with a failure in the observance of neutral duties, especially as the vessel was, both before and afterwards, permitted to obtain coal in the ports of many other states, and that her last supply before she crossed the Atlantic was not secured in a British port. The tribunal of arbitration in its award held: "In order to impart to supplies of coal a character inconsistent with the second rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters as a base of naval operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such character." In signing the award Viscount d'Itajubá remarked that he was of opinion that every government was free to furnish to the belligerents more or less "of coal. It does not appear that in any case Great Britain was held responsible for the acts of a vessel in consequence of supplies of coal. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, IV. 4097-4101; Papers relating to the Treaty of It is not a breach of neutrality for a neutral state to permit the coaling of belligerent steamers in its ports to the same extent as it permits the coaling of other foreign steamers resorting to its ports casually and without settled stations established for them. Nor is it a breach of neutrality for a neutral state to permit the sale of coal to any extent to a belligerent. It would, however, be a breach of neutrality for a neutral to permit a permanent depot or magazine to be opened on its shores, on which a particular belligerent could depend for constant supplies. To require a neutral to shut up its ports |