網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

interest of a wise and chivalrous warfare, which should constantly afford to neutral powers the highest possible consideration.”

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Christiancy, No. 119, Jan. 25, 1881, For
Rel. 1881, 857.

During the insurrection in Brazil in 1893 the American minister at Rio de Janeiro reported that the commanders of foreign vessels had asked the insurgents to cease firing while they searched the harbor for floating torpedoes. The American minister asked whether he might join with his colleagues of the diplomatic corps to the end of securing like action on the part of the Government forts. The Department of State instructed him "to join in the request, which hould be made to both parties, if the floating torpedoes are proving a damage to neutral vessels, that they permit the removal of those torpedoes.

Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, min. to Brazil, tel., Nov. 17, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 75.

"Under the direction of the Chief of Engineers submarine mines were placed at the most exposed points. Before the outbreak of the war permanent mining casemates and cable galleries had been constructed at nearly all important harbors. Most of the torpedo material was not to be found in the market, and had to be specially manufactured. Under date of April 19, district officers were directed to take all preliminary measures, short of the actual attaching of the loaded mines to the cables, and on April 22 telegraphic orders were issued to place the loaded mines in position.

The aggregate number of mines placed was 1,535, at the principal harbors from Maine to California. Preparations were also made for the planting of mines at certain other harbors, but owing to the early destruction of the Spanish fleet these mines were not placed."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LVI.
As to the notice given of the mines in New York Harbor, see Mr. Day, Sec.
of State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, British ambass., May 11, 1898, MS.
Notes to British Leg. XXIV. 183.

Accompanying the notice given by the United States of the placing of
mines there were regulations for the navigation of the entrances to
harbors, pending war.

At the conference at The Hague, in 1899, the president of the second subcommittee of the second committee suggested for discussion the subject of the use of submarine torpedo boats, intimating at the same time that if one nation adopted these terrible weapons all should be free to do so.

Capt. Siegel thought that, if other nations would agree not to adopt ships of this kind, Germany would adhere to the understanding. Capt. Mahan reserved his opinion and that of his Government.

The Austro-Hungarian delegate said that his Government had no such boats which were not sufficiently developed to be of practical use. Personally he thought they might be employed for the defense. of ports and roads and render very appreciable service.

The Danish delegate thought his Government would agree to forbid, if others would.

The French delegate thought they had an eminently defensive object, and it was not necessary to prohibit them.

The British delegate thought his Government would consent to forbid them if all the Great Powers would agree to do so.

The delegates of Italy and Japan expressed an opinion similar to that of Capt. Siegel.

The Netherlands delegate considered the submarine torpedo boat an arm of the feeble, and that it could not be forbidden.

The Russian delegate, with a reserve as to unanimity, was for prohibition.

The Siamese delegate reserved the question, (1) as he was instructed to adhere as far as possible to humane measures, but (2) as he thought it necessary seriously to consider the necessities of the defense of weak states.

The delegate of Sweden and Norway concurred with The Netherlands delegate.

The Turkish delegate wished to reserve the use of the weapon as a means of defense.

Conférence Internationale de la Paix, 1899, part 2, p. 88.

Captain Mahan, in his report on disarmament, with reference to navies, observes, in respect of his opposition to the proposal to forbid the use of projectiles the sole purpose of which was, on bursting, to spread asphyxiating or deleterious gases:

"3. That it was illogical, and not demonstrably humane, to be tender about asphyxiating men with gas, when all were prepared to admit that it was allowable to blow the bottom out of an ironclad at midnight, throwing four or five hundred into the sea, to be choked by water, with scarcely the remotest chance of escape." (Holls, 495.)

III. CUTTING OF CABLES.

§ 1176.

Article X. of the convention of 1884 for the protection of subma rine cables outside territorial waters provides that, when there is reason to believe that an infraction of the convention has been "committed by a vessel other than a vessel of war," the master of the suspected vessel may be required to exhibit the official evidence of its nationality. Article XV. provides: "It is understood that the stipu lations of this convention shall in nowise affect the liberty of action. of belligerents." Lest there might, even after this article, be room

for misunderstanding, Lord Lyons offered in behalf of the British Government the following declaration: Her Majesty's Government understands Article XV. in this sense, that, in time of war, a belligerent, a signatory of the convention, shall be free to act in regard to submarine cables as if the convention did not exist." The Belgian delegates submitted a declaration of the same tenor.

Submarine Telegraphic Cables in their International Relations, by
George Grafton Wilson, Naval War College, Aug. 1901, 13.

During the war with Spain, officers of the United States on several occasions cut submarine cables owned by neutrals, in order to prevent the adversary from making use of them in furtherance of hostile designs. The protection of submarine cables outside territorial waters is regulated by the international convention signed at Paris, March 14, 1884. This convention, to which the United States is a party, expressly provides that its stipulations "shall in nowise affect the liberty of action of belligerents." The precedents as to such action, prior to the war with Spain, were not numerous, since communication by cables is a comparatively recent thing. On the outbreak of the war, the Government of the United States considered "the advantage of declaring telegraph cables neutral," and to that end directed its naval forces in Cuban waters to refrain from interfering with them. till further orders. This inhibition evidently was soon revoked. Early in May, 1898, two out of three cables were cut near Cienfuegos, with a view to sever connection with Havana. On May 16, an unsuccessful effort was made to cut the Santiago de Cuba-Jamaica cables; and two days later one of them was severed 1.3 miles off Morro Castle. May 20, the cable connecting Cuba and Hayti was broken outside the marine league off Mole St. Nicholas. July 11, the cable connecting Santa Cruz del Sur, Trinidad, Cienfuegos, and Havana, with Manzanillo and the east of Cuba, was cut; as was also, five days later, the line connecting Santa Cruz and Jucaro. All or nearly all the cables were the property of neutrals. The neutral (British) cable from Bolinao, in the Philippines, to Hong Kong was cut by Admiral Dewey. In all these cases the object of the interruption was to confuse and frustrate the military operations, whether offensive or defensive, of the enemy.

Naval Operations of the War with Spain, 176, 186, 208, 209, 210, 211, 244, 255; and supra, § 1039.

IV. PRISONERS.

$1177.

"The Attorney-General of the United States has given it as his opinion, and in it I concur, that any American citizen, being

pilot, may lawfully exercise his usual functions as pilot on board of any vessel of war; and if during his employment on board an engagement shall take place, his being on board is not to be considered as criminal, but accidental and innocent."

Mr. Randolph, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fauchet, Sept. 17, 1794, 7 MS. Dom.
Let. 268.

A French decree "that every foreigner found on board the vessels of war or of commerce of the enemy is to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can have no right to the protection of the diplomatic and commercial agents of his nation," is in contravention of the law of nations.

Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, report, Jan. 25, 1806, 15 MS. Dom. Let. 70.

"9. The crews of blockade runners are not enemies and should be treated not as prisoners of war, but with every consideration. Any of the officers or crew, however, whose testimony before the prize court may be desired, should be detained as witnesses.”

Instructions to U. S. Blockading Vessels and Cruisers, General Orders,
No. 492, June 20, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, 781.

See Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Welles, Sec. of Navy, May 5, 1864,
64 MS. Dom. Let. 207.

Count Bismarck in 1870 denied that sailors on captured merchant vessels could be made prisoners of war, and threatened and executed reprisals on France for acting on that principle. (Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 407.)

After the outbreak of war between the United States and Spain in 1898, various Spanish merchant vessels, captured as prize by the American naval forces, were sent to Key West for judicial proceedings. The officers and crews, in order to afford them subsistence, were turned over to the military authorities and were "harbored and protected" at the Key West barracks. June 24, 1898, the United States, being desirous of making an arrangement for sending them away, notified the French ambassador, who was charged with the care of Spanish interests, that it would give instructions for their subsistence and protection on their way to a place of embarcation. June 30, 1898, notice was given that they would be sent to New York, where it was requested that they should be committed to the care of the consul-general of Austria-Hungary, to whom the protection of Spanish interests, at that port was entrusted.

In a case where a Spanish brig flying the flag of Honduras was captured while attempting to run the blockade of Havana, and was condemned and ordered to be sold, the United States, while disclaiming any desire to detain the persons found on board, stated that it did not think itself under "any obligation to provide them with the means of transportation, especially as the devices resorted to by the

brig for the purpose of escaping lawful capture must have been known to those on board."

For. Rel. 1898, 789, 795–800.

The Spanish steamer Panama, while on a voyage from New York to Havana, was, after the outbreak of war, between the United States and Spain, captured as prize by the American naval forces. Among those found on board was a Spanish subject, who gave his name as Mr. Jiminez Zapatero. As he had in his possession a lot of coast charts, which he threw overboard, and as he had in his trunk epaulets and a sword, and admitted that he had some years before been an officer in the Spanish navy, he was held as a military person and was sent to Fortress Monroe as a prisoner of war. Orders were given to furnish him with accommodations and treat him according to the rank that he should claim, but, as he refused to make any statement beyond giving his name, he was held as a private. After the conclusion of the protocol of Aug. 12, 1898, as a preliminary to the conclusion of a peace, he was released.

For. Rel. 1898, 794, 798, 809.

During the war between the United States and Spain, in 1898, the officers and crews of various Spanish vessels which were captured as prize by the American forces were, while in the custody of the latter, allowed to send to and receive from their families in Spain open communications, as well as to correspond in the same manner with the owners of the vessels.

For. Rel. 1898, 789–790, 792, 793, 794.

In July, 1898, the United States proposed to allow 1,600 Spanish sailors held at Portsmouth, N. H., as prisoners of war, to return on parole if the Spanish Government would send a neutral ship for them.

The Spanish Government declined the offer on the ground that the Spanish naval code imposed a penalty upon prisoners of war who obtain their release by giving their promise not to bear arms again against the enemy. The Spanish Government added that, although this restriction would seem to apply rather to officers than to common seamen, from whom such an engagement was not generally expected, the ministry of marine did not feel itself in a position to consent to the adoption of a course with regard to one class of naval forces which would be punished as a fault with regard to another.

For. Rel. 1898, 996–998.

It was stated by the Japanese minister in Washington, on April 9, 1901, that his Government had released all the passengers on board

« 上一頁繼續 »