Some Questions of International Law, analogous case of an army which has been forced to retreat into neutral territory. The surrender of these sailors to Russia under the circumstances would have furnished a just cause for protest on the part of Japan, and might have tended in future wars either to discourage rescue from a sense of hu manity for fear of offending one of the bel ligerents on the one hand, or to have encour aged it from motives of partiality on the other.1 In the earlier period of the war there were frequent comments in the Russian press on what was called "American meddling.'1 * 1 A different course was followed by the Brit ish Government in the famous case of the Deerhound, a private yacht belonging to the Royal Yacht Association of England. The owner of this yacht, acting at te request of Captain Winslow of the Kcarsarge, helped to rescue the offi cers and crew of the Alabama upon the occasion of the latter's sinking at the hands of the Kearsarge during the Civil War. To the surprise of Captain Winslow, the Decrhouiid. after picking up a certain number of men, largely officers (in eluding Captain Semines) of the Alabama, hastily and surreptitiously steamed off with its precious cargo to Southampton. Several of these had, as it seems, already surrendered themselves to the Kcarsarge as prisoners of war, and there was some evidence of collusion between Captain Semmes and the owner of the Dcerhound. To be sure, the Dccrlioiind was a private yacht instead of a warship, but she seems to have had a sort of semi-official character as a boat belonging to the Royal Yacht Association. In any case, the British Government would probably have best performed its neutral duties by interning the offi cers and men of the Alabama as prisoners of war. For the facts of the case, see the Claims against Great Britain, Vol. III. pp. 261-308 (ist sess. 4ist Cong. 1869). For a somewhat different view of the law and the facts, see Bernard, The Neutrality of Great Britain During the American Civil War, pp. 429-30. 'A loud outcry was raised by the Russian press late in February in consequence of a report that an application had been made to the United States Government by the Commercial Cable Company (presumably acting in the interest of Japan), for permission to connect Japan with Guam in the Philippine Islands (and thus with the rest of the world), by means of a submarine cable, it being feared that the two existing cables connecting Nagasaki with Shanghai would be cut by the Russians. In such a case Japan would have been cut off from telegraphic communica tion with the rest of the world. In Russia the view was said to have prevailed that the granting of such a permit by the United States would constitute a breach of neutrality, al-
453
These seem to have been largely inspired by the pro-Japanese tone of the American press, and also by the interest manifested by the Government and people of the United States in the fate of China. It goes without saying that expressions of opinion and sympathy on the part of neutral individuals, or of the newspapers, or even of public meetings, in behalf of either belligerent do not constitute a violation of neutrality. No Government can be required to interfere with such free expression of opinion or sympathy, and it is not desirable in a land animated by the tra ditions and spirit of freedom that it should attempt to do so. It is a mere confusion of ideas to pretend, as Prince Mestchersky pretended a few days ago, and as some people in this country seem to imagine, that because it is our duty as a State to observe the legal obligations of neutrality, it is also our duty as a people to affect indifference toward both belligerents in the present struggle." 3 The American sympathy for Japan seems also to have sought expression in several practical ways. For example, it was an nounced in February that sixty residents of Chicago (among them being a number of veterans of the Spanish-American War) in though there seems to have been no official inti mation or expression of opinion to this effect on the part of the Russian Government. Our Government appears to have been similarly non committal. In reply to an informal inquiry by Count Cassini, the Russian ambassador, at Wash ington, as to the truth of this report. Secretary Hay is said to have denied that the United States Government was at present considering such an application. (See Chicago Record-Herald for March 2. 1904). There thus appears to have been no official expression of opinion on either side. but it is interesting to notice that telegraph and tele phone materials are included in the list of arti cles considered contraband of war published by the Russian Government on February 28. The legality of propriety of laying suelva cable would seem to depend upon the question of fact as to whether it was an enterprise in which the anhiii's r'idendi or the animus bclligcrandi predomi nated. 3 Slightly adapted from an editorial in the London Times (weekly ed.). for March 7, 1904. For some official utterances of American states men on this head, see Wharton's Digest III., §389.
