He referred to the decision of the Japanese Prize Court at Sasebo on May 26, 1904, condemning as an enemy vessel the Russian harbor launch Juliette captured in a Japanese port (II Russ. and Jap. P. C. 103).

Mr. Loudon replied on Mar. 17, 1915:

"... A vessel does not lose its character of a river navigation vessel by reason of the fact that its tonnage is considerable or because it could in exceptional circumstances venture to sea without too much danger."

He doubted the applicability as a precedent of the Juliette case, both because of the exemption from capture of small boats used in local trade provided for by Hague Convention XI and because

"the 'Juliette' was employed for traffic in a sea-port, while the lighters and inland navigation vessels at Antwerp are only intended for the navigation of canals and rivers."

Gt. Br., Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 12 (1918), Cd. 9026, pp. 27-28, 30, 31, 32-33.

After

After the conclusion of the Armistice on November 11, 1918, the Government of the Netherlands decided on November 12 to allow German forces evacuating Belgium to cross the Netherlands province cessation of of Limburg on their way back to Germany, surrendering their arms fighting upon entering the Netherlands. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands informed the Ministers of the United States, Belgium, France, Great Britain, and Italy of this action, referring to the impossibility of interning so large a number of German troops and to the desirability of facilitating the evacuation of German troops from Belgium. Secretary Lansing instructed the American Minister to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs that

while of course the action of The Netherlands Government in permitting German troops to return directly across Dutch territory in the narrowest part of the province of Limburg, is a violation of neutrality on the part of The Netherlands, the United States is not disposed in the circumstances to raise objection thereto at the present time on the understanding that this attitude of the United States is not to be regarded as a precedent, or as an admission of the rightfulness of the action of The Netherlands Government.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs replied on December 14 that he was glad that the United States had not formulated objection, and said that under the circumstances "neither the measures taken by the Dutch Government nor the considerations which supported them, are contrary to neutrality". The Belgian Government objected strongly, on the ground that the Armistice did not put an end to the war, that the failure to intern the troops in the Netherlands would enable them to bear arms later in the war, and that a precedent would be established for a possible future German attack across Limburg against

Belgium. The French and Italian Ministers also protested, and the British Minister "protested formally".

The Chargé d'Affaires in The Hague (Bliss) to the Secretary of State (Lansing), telegram 5133, Nov. 13, 1918, and Mr. Lansing to the Minister to the Netherlands (Garrett), telegram 2415, Nov. 21, 1918, MS. Department of State, file 763.72111/7235; the Belgian Minister (De Cartier de Marchienne) to Mr. Lansing, Nov. 23, 1918, ibid. /7237; Mr. Garrett to Mr. Lansing, telegram 5303, Nov. 27, 1918, ibid. /7240; Mr. Garrett to Mr. Lansing, no. 2319, Jan. 6, 1919 (enclosures), ibid. /7296. See also Netherlands, Mededeelingen van den Minister van Buitenlandsche Zaken aan de StatenGeneraal, April 1918–Juni 1919, pp. 9 et seq.; Vandenbosch, Neutrality of the Netherlands During the World War (1927) 64–76.

After the Armistice, November 11, 1918, the United States Government, on January 27, 1919, requested permission for the use of the neutral Netherlands port of Rotterdam and the Rhine River as a means of supplying its armies of occupation in Germany. The Netherlands granted the request on the understanding that the transportation should take place under the flag of commerce. On February 1 the United States asked permission to send American troops and supplies down the Rhine and to tranship them at Rotterdam, and on February 12 such permission was given on the conditions that this be regarded as a special case and not as a precedent, that transportation be under the flag of commerce, that only officers should carry arms, and that a Netherlands officer should accompany each convoy. Shortly thereafter permission to use the Scheldt was granted under similar conditions.

Netherlands, Mededeelingen van den Minister van Buitenlandsche Zaken aan de Staten-Generaal, April 1918–Juni 1919, pp. 14–15.

The Netherlands granted similar privileges to Allied governments. When Great Britain wished to send men on leave through the Netherlands to England and back and to move troops with arms through the Netherlands, the Netherlands objected. The British Foreign Office explained its position, saying in an instruction of Feb. 3, 1919 to the British Minister at The Hague: "Though technically we are still at war with Germany and Holland remains neutral no real infraction of any neutral obligation on the part of Holland is in fact involved. The obligation of a neutral to prevent passage of armed forces of belligerent across his territory is but the application of principle that neutral must not allow his territory to be used by one belligerent in order to further military operations directed against the other. In present case the returning troops are coming home to be demobilised; their passage therefore, so far from promoting military operations against Germany, is in accordance with terms of armistice to which Germany is a party. Germany therefore cannot and does not object to their arrival in German territory and it cannot affect Germany in any way whether or not such troops, on their way to occupied provinces were [where] their protection is stipulated for, pass through neutral territory. Germany is in no way disadvantaged by Holland permitting the passage. "On the other hand Holland is herself interested in easing general trans

portation difficulties which must be successfully overcome as a whole in order that the provisioning of Western Europe with food and necessary supplies is to be assured. A general break-down of essential line of communications is as little to the Dutch as to the Allied interest."

The Netherlands finally gave permission in order that the return of normal relations might be more promptly brought about. Ibid. 15-21,

The Swedish Minister to the United States said in an American press interview, in August 1940, with respect to Swedish foreign policy:

"I have the distinct impression that the significance of the Swedish Government's decision to permit unrestricted transit traffic to Norway, and to allow German soldiers on leave to travel through Sweden to and from Norway, has been misunderstood and misinterpreted in many quarters abroad and, at first, perhaps also at home. To permit the trans-shipment of goods, including war materials, is in itself no violation of neutrality. Such transit traffic occurred in Sweden both during the previous World War and to Finland during its recent defensive struggle against Russia.

“That such shipments were not permitted by the Swedish Government as long as fighting took place in Norway has been explained by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government by the fact that Sweden, for natural reasons, was unwilling to take part in anything which might have made more difficult the Norwegian people's struggle for independence. But when the fighting in Norway was over, which nowhere caused more sorrow or was more deeply deplored than in the Swedish brother nation, there was no further reason for maintaining the bar against trans-shipments to and from the occupied neighboring country. The interests of Norway could not have been advanced by a Swedish refusal of the German requests; opportunities for the Norwegian people to live and work might, on the other hand, be improved by the reopening of traffic to and through Sweden.

"Then came the consideration that the war between the great Powers could hardly be affected by the Swedish decision. In the American press there have appeared mentions of German troop transports through Sweden. the permits have been granted only after detailed negotiations and only under carefully specified conditions, which are of such a character that "they in no way affect Sweden's sovereignty or independence and are not in violation of our neutrality.'

...

"As a matter of fact, the conditions agreed upon are such that only German soldiers on leave and without arms may travel in special cars or trains under careful supervision from Norway to Germany and possibly return. Such transports do not increase the number of German soldiers in Norway by a single man, as Minister Westman expressly stated on July 28, and they cannot therefore have any influence on the war between Germany and Great Britain. Nor can they cause any danger to Sweden's independence or freedom of action.

"This point was further stressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Christian E. Guenther, in his address before the special session of the Riksdag on August 16, when he reminded the members of the Swedish Parliament that under this agreement German soldiers could use the Swedish railroads for trips to Germany on leave and then return. Their arms, on the other hand, were to be left in Norway. It had further been agreed, he said, that the Germans could use the Swedish railroads for the transport of war materials and, to a limited extent, also soldiers from one point in Norway to another, the Norwegian railroads not covering the entire country.

Soldiers on leave had been transported, as stipulated, through Sweden, he added, but on the other hand, there had been no demands for the transit of war materials from Germany to Norway through Sweden."

The Swedish Minister (Boström) to the Secretary of State (Hull), Aug. 23, 1940 (enclosure), MS. Department of State, file 740.00111 European War 1939/497.

The Swedish Government issued the following communiqué on Aug. 6, 1941:

"Courier planes belonging to a belligerent nation may upon special permission come onto Swedish territory. Foreign naval vessels (with excep tion of submarines) and foreign merchant vessels irrespective of cargo may pass through Swedish territorial waters. In case of naval vessels, however, certain restrictions apply[;] inter alia they may not pass through inner territorial waters. Swedish navy carefully follows all foreign shipping within Swedish territorial waters. By land transit shipments of articles of all kinds are generally permitted. However, for certain articles, principally war materials, a special Swedish license issued in accordance with law is required. In accordance with usual rules of international law wounded persons are permitted to pass through neutral countries." The Second Secretary of the Legation at Stockholm (Greene) to the Secretary of State (Hull), telegram 472, Aug. 6, 1941, MS. Department of State, file 740.00111 European War 1939/599.

Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, providing for "sanctions", contains an agreement by the members of the League to "take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League".

3 Treaties, etc. (Redmond, 1923) 3329, 3341.

"... Members of the League have agreed by this article 'to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.' While the grant of this facility to a belligerent was in the eighteenth century entirely consistent with neutrality, the reverse is now generally recognised to be the case, and Article 2 of Hague Convention V. addresses an express prohibition to belligerents which by implication extends to neutrals. Normally, therefore, it would be impossible for a member of the League lawfully to act on that provision of Article 16 without declaring war and co-operating as an ally or associate; but here again it may be said that the Covenantbreaking member of the League against whom force is being used has consented in advance to its fellow-members granting, unneutral facilities, and is therefore debarred from complaining that a breach of neutrality has occurred. This is so notwithstanding the fact that as the result of various declarations made in and before 1938 and amounting to an unilateral denunciation of the obligations of Article 16 there is at present probably no legal duty to permit the passage of troops proceeding against the Covenantbreaking State." II Oppenheim's International Law (6th ed., by Lauterpacht, 1940) 509.

"In 1940 Sweden and Norway gave a negative reply to the enquiry by Great Britain and France whether they would permit the passage of Allied troops which it was intended to send to Finland in pursuance of the Resolution of the Assembly in the matter of the Russo-Finnish War". Ibid. 509n.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES FURNISHED BY INDIVIDUALS LEGALITY OF COMMERCE

$684

Article VII of Hague Convention V provides:

A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2290, 2298; 36 Stat. 2310, 2323.

It was stated in the report of the Second Commission with respect to the above article:

66

"... Theoretically, at least, neutral States and their populations are not to suffer from the consequences of a war in which they do not participate. Therefore the duties imposed on them by the war and the restrictions placed on their liberty of action should be reduced to the minimum of what is strictly necessary. There is no reason for prohibiting or interfering with the commerce of a neutral State even in regard to the articles mentioned in the text of the article above. Any obligation in this matter laid upon the neutral State would cause the greatest difficulties in actual practice, and would create inadmissible interference with commerce." Scott, Reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (1917) 542; I Deuxième Conférence Internationale de la Paix: Actes et documents (The Hague, 1907) 141. Article VII of Hague Convention XIII provides:

"A neutral Power is not bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunitions, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet." 2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2352, 2359; 36 Stat. 2415, 2428.

Article XVII (b) of Hague Convention V provides that a neutral individual "cannot avail himself of his neutrality”, if he "commits acts in favour of a belligerent". Article XVIII states:

"The following acts shall not be considered as committed in favour of one belligerent in the sense of Article XVII, letter (b):

"(a.) Supplies furnished or loans made to one of the belligerents, provided that the person who furnishes the supplies or who makes the loans lives neither in the territory of the other party nor in the territory occupied by him, and that the supplies do not come from these territories".

2 Treaties, etc. (Malloy, 1910) 2290, 2299-2300; 36 Stat. 2310, 2325–2326. "Neutral states are not obligated to prevent the export or transit at the expense of any one of the belligerents of arms, munitions and in general of anything which may be useful to their military forces." Convention on maritime neutrality, signed at Habana, Feb. 20, 1928, art. 22, 4 Treaties, etc. (Trenwith, 1938) 4743, 4748; 47 Stat. 1989, 1994.

During revolutionary disturbances in Mexico and in reply to a memorandum from the Mexican Embassy, the Department of State