Sonic Questions of International Law.
751
the case of the Arabia. The vessel together to have been no evidence that either the flour or the railway material was intended with that part of the cargo consigned to neutral ports was released, but that portion for the use of the Japanese Government.1 of the cargo which had been consigned to The cargo was shipped in the ordinary Japanese ports was condemned." course of trade from Portland, Oregon, and was consigned to private individuals (mer The only attempted justification of these decisions is the following semi-official state chants) in Yokohama. The Russian prize court at Vladivostok, ment by a high Russian official to the Asso which gave its decision in the latter part of ciated Press: July, condemned such portion of the carpo "Foodstuff consigned to an enemy's port (flour and railway material) of the Arabia as in sufficient quantity to create the presump had been consigned to Japanese ports; but tion that it is intended for the use of the Government's military or naval forces is the vessel together with the remainder of the cargo (which consisted of flour con the decision of the prize court was not rendered before September 13. signed to Hong Kong and which included The Calcitas was, however, detained at Vladivos more than one-half of its bulk and weight) tok until October 28, i. «., a month and a half after she should have been released, on the plea was released.2 of the Russian Crown Advocate that she had car The Calchas was a British steamer with a ried mail matter from the United States to Japan containing information of special value to the cargo of flour, raw cotton, lumber and ma enemy addressed to Japanese officials. This fact chinery'1 shipped from Tacoma and con was not made public until October 9, when it wa* learned that several of the Pacific mail steamship signed to Yokohama, Kobe, Hong Kong lines had notified the Postmaster-General at and Europe. As in the case of the Arabia, Washington that they would hereafter refuse to carry United States mail addressed to Japan. It it is claimed by the owners of the cargo * was subsequently learned that the mail bags of that the commodities shipped to Japanese the Calchas had been opened by Russian officials that the contents of four registered mail sacks ports were consigned to private individuals, and had not only been opened, but removed. The and that they were in no wise intended for bags were then resealed and forwarded to Japan after considerable delay. Among the letters lost the consumption of the Japanese army or are said to have been some diplomatic communi navy. The decision of the local Russian prize cations (which are privileged) from the Japanese Minister at Washington. It was also reported court at Vladivostok 0 was the same as in on October 14 that a pouch containing private "Continuous Voyage as Applied to Contraband." see especially Westlake in Law Quarterly Rcricw XV.. pp. 24-32; Woolsey in Outlook, Vol. 94. pp. I07ff, and Baty, International Law in South Africa. •ch. i. The latter is an extremely able attack on the doctrine. Mr. Baty, at least, shows that it is liable to great abuse. 'It was claimed at the time that the railway material, although primarily to be landed at a Japanese port, was to be transhipped thence to Chemulpo in Korea, where it was to be used in the construction of a railway by the Japanese Government; but the cargo does not appear to have been condemned on this ground. 'See New York Times for August 4. 1904. The cotton and machinery are said to have been of a strictly commercial character. 4See letter of A. Holt and Company in the Lon don Times (weekly) for August 26, 1904. "See New York Times for September 15, 1004. The Calchas was captured in the latter part of July and arrived at Vladivostok on August 8. but
or domestic mail for the United States cruiser Cincinnati, then at Nagasaki. Japan, had been opened, subsequently resealed, and then sent on to its destination. We are not informed as to the action taken by our State Department at Washington with regard to this matter, but if the facts have been correctly stated, there can be no doubt but that Russia has been guilty of a clear violation of the International Postal Union treaty, as well as of International Law. However far the belligerent right of search of neutral mail steamers and con fiscation of noxious mail matter may extend, it cannot possibly be made to justify the detention of a mail steamer under such circumstances. The law bearing on this subject has already been dis cussed in a previous article of this series. See THE GREEN ВАС. for October, 1904. "In both cases an appeal has been taken to the higher Admiralty Court at St. Petersburg, which may be expected to reverse the decisions of the local court in view of the recent conces sions, in principle, made by the Russian Govern ment to Great Britain and the United States.
