Some Questions of International Law. thorities at that port also permitted the Russian vessels to take in a full supply of coal.1 The British Government, on the other hand, not only insisted upon the en forcement of the twenty-four hour rule, but refused to supply Russian warships with more coal than was needed to carry them to some nearer neutral destination. The right of belligerent warships to coal in neutral ports has been much discussed during the present struggle. It has de rived particular interest and importance from frequent reports that the Russian Bal tic fleet intended speedily to leave the Baltic Sea for the Far East—a departure repeat edly announced, but always deferred until the middle of October. It is well known that Russia has no coaling stations of its own, and that if the Baltic Fleet ever pro poses to reach its destination, it must de pend upon accompanying colliers for its coal—a difficult and dangerous expedient— or upon neutral ports for sufficient sup plies.2 It is generally believed that the French and German Governments' would raise no 'Lawrence, of>. cit., pp. 120 and 123. This cor rects a previous statement made by the writer in The Green Bag for July, 1904. See p. 458 of Vol. XVI. "The Spanish Government was at first reported to have refused to permit the Baltic Fleet to coal at Vigo on October 26, but the following day it was announced that the Spanish authorities at Vigo had permitted each vessel to take on 400 tons. See New York Times for October 27 and 28. The Spanish Government is also said to have "authorized the Russian warships at Vigo to remain in port and complete repairs on con dition that they leave immediately after repairs are completed." Chicago Tribune for October 28, 1004. The Baltic fleet remained several days at Vigo and then proceeded to Tangier where it was apparently permitted to take on a full supply of coal and provisions by the Moorish authori ties on October 30. Numerous complaints have since been made by the Japanese Press, of the facilities for coaling afforded to the Baltic fleet in French ports. 'See especially the London Times (weekly ed.) for September 30, 1904 for a summary of docu ments published on this subject by M. Hutin in the F.clw de Paris. The German Government let it be known, however, as early as February that
8l5
objections to the granting of supplies of coal to Russian vessels at French and Ger man ports, at least in quantities sufficient to enable them to reach the next neutral ports, but the British Government has taken much more advanced ground. In her Neu trality Proclamation of February 10, 1904, Great Britain instructed the authorities in British ports not to permit belligerent war ships to take on more coal than is necessary to carry them to the nearest home port, "or to some nearer named neutral destination,"4 and in a more recent set of instructions, sent to the Governors of British Colonies and Dependencies, even more advanced ground than this was taken. The British authorities were advised that they were in the future to refuse to grant facilities for coaling or provisioning in British ports to belligerent vessels "proceeding to the thea tre of war or to any position or positions on the line of route with the object of in tercepting neutral ships on suspicion of car rying contraband of war."5 the Baltic Fleet would not be permitted to pass, through the Kiel Canal. In this respect at least, as also in disarming the Russian warships at Tsing-Tau. Germany has perhaps more than fultilled her neutral obligations. 'This phrase is omitted in the American procla mation of neutrality. 'From the text of a proclamation issued by the Governor of Malta on August 12, 1904. See London Times (weekly ed.) for August 26, 1904. The "Instructions" themselves have not been published, so far as we are aware. The Procla mation of the Governor of Malta also declares that "such fleet shall not be permitted to make use in any way of any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the jurisdiction of His Majesty for the purpose of coaling either directly from the shore or from colliers accompanying such Heel, whether vessels of such fleet present themselves to any such port or roadstead or within the said waters at the same time or successively." The Egyptian Neutrality Order of February 12, 1004, provides that "before the commander of a belligerent ship-of-war is allowed to obtain coal in any port of Egypt, he must obtain a formal authorization from the authorities of the port, specifying the amount he may take. Such au thorization is to be granted only after the receipt from the commander of a written statement, set ting forth the name of the port to which he is
