With reference to this report the War Department, on the same day, instructed Governor Wright that the President directed that the 24-hour limit must be strictly enforced, and that the necessary supplies and coal must be taken within that time.

On June 9 Admiral Train reported that, as the Russian ships had not left the harbor within the required 24 hours, he had notified Admiral Enquist that the force under his command must be considered as interned after June 8 at noon. Admiral Train stated that disarmament was going on by removing the breech plugs, and that the engines were sufficiently disabled for the purpose of internment by limiting the coal supply. He added that Admiral Enquist, in accordance with instructions of his government, had expressed his willingness to give his parole and the paroles of his officers and men not to take any further part in the war.

June 19, 1905, the Russian ambassador at Washington inquired whether the hospital ship Kostroma, which had been ordered from Shanghai to Manila, would be allowed to take wounded or sick officers and sailors from Admiral Enquist's vessels back to Russia on their giving their paroles to take no further part in the war. A similar inquiry was received from Admiral Train. The matter was on June 20 brought to the attention of the Japanese legation, but on the next day, before its answer was received, the Kostroma arrived at Manila, and the President deemed it proper and humane to direct a compliance with the Russian request, upon the officers and men giving their parole, in accordance with the assurance given in the Russian ambassador's note. Meanwhile, the Japanese Government instructed its legation to state that it would not object to any dispo sition which the United States might see fit to make of the subject.

June 20 Admiral Enquist, through the French consul, asked permission to bring from Shanghai material other than munitions of war for repairing his vessel, such as cordage, sail cloth, waste, and oil for machinery, and other articles. Permission was granted by the War Department, with the understanding that the vessels were still to remain in internment.

June 24 Admiral Train inquired whether the hauling down of the flag of the Russian ships was regarded as a necessary condition of internment. The Department of State, on being consulted, advised, June 28, that the internment of the ships did not take from them their nationality, and that, although the hospitality which the Russian ships enjoyed at Manila was limited by the exigencies of war and the duties of the United States as a neutral, yet their internment would not seem to deprive them of the mere privilege of flying their national colors. Admiral Train was accordingly instructed that the hauling down of the flag was "not considered a necessary condition of internment."

July 26, 1905, the Russian ambassador at Washington asked that Sublieutenant Bertenson, of the Aurora, be allowed to return to Russia, on his parole not to take further part in the war. The request, which appeared to be made as for a favor, was, with the concurrence of the Japanese Government, granted. It soon appeared, however, by a cable from Manila, that Sublieutenant Bertenson was ill, and that Admiral Enquist had asked permission not only for him, but for certain other officers, who also were ill, to return to Russia, their physical condition requiring that they leave the climate of Manila. Permission was, with the concurrence of the Japanese Government, granted for their return to Russia on parole, it appearing by the examination and report of the United States naval authorities at Manila that they were ill. The permission embraced two lieutenants and two sublieutenants.

Toward the end of July, 1905, the Russian Government announced that it would detail Commander Bartsch to take command of the Aurora, in place of Captain Iegorieff, deceased. The naval authorities at Manila were instructed to permit him, on his arrival, to take command of the ship, and to obtain his parole under the same conditions as were required of the officers of the other interned vessels.

October 7, 1905, the commander of the United States naval forces in the Philippines cabled that Admiral Enquist had asked permission for Shipbuilder Lohvitzky to return to Russia on parole for urgent and satisfactory personal reasons. Under the conditions then existing, it being assumed that a "shipbuilder" was not an active combatant, permission was granted without obtaining the consent of the Japanese Government.

October 18, 1905, Mr. Root, Secretary of State, referring to his letter of the 14th of the month to the Secretary of the Navy advising the latter that the Government of the United States had been officially notified of the ratification of the treaty of peace between Russia and Japan by both Governments and that the Lena and her complement at San Francisco might be released, wrote to the Secretary of the Navy that the same treatment might be accorded to the Russian war vessels and their complements at Manila or in Philippine waters. Instructions were accordingly given to the United States naval authorities in the Philippines, and within a few days the vessels departed.

Mr. Morton, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, June 5, 1905; Memorandum of Mr. Penfield, Solicitor of Department of State, June 5, 1905; Mr. Morton, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, June 5, 1905; Mr. Taft, Sec. of War, to Sec. of State, June 5, 1905; Mr. Oliver, Act. Sec. of War, to Sec. of State, June 6, 1905; same to game, June 6, 1905; same to same, confid., June 6, 1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, June 9, 1905; Mr. Taft, Sec. of War, to Sec. of State, June 9, 1905; Count Cassini, Russian ambass., to Mr. Loomis, Act. Sec. of State, June 19,

1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, June 19, 1905; Mr. Loomis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Takahira, Japanese min., No. 203, June 20, 1905; Mr. Loomis, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hioki, Jap. chargé, June 21, 1905; Mr. Hioki, Jap. chargé, to Mr. Loomis, June 22, 1905; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Count Cassini, Russ. amb., No. 267, June 23, 1905; Mr. Peirce, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, June 24, 1905; same to same, June 24, 1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, confid., June 24, 1905; Mr. Taft, Sec. of War, to Sec. of State, June 20, 1905; same to same, June 24, 1905; Mr. Darling, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, confid., June 24, 1905; Mr. Pierce, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, June 28, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, July 1, 1905; Baron Rosen, Russ. amb., to Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, July 26, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hioki, Jap. chargé, July 27, 1905; Mr. Hioki to Mr. Adee, July 28, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, July 29, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Baron Rosen, Russ, amb., No. 5, July 29, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Aug. 2, 1905; same to same, Aug. 4, 1905; same to same, July 28, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, July 29, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hioki, Jap. chargé, July 29, 1905; Mr. Hioki to Mr. Adee, July 31, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Aug. 2, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Baron Rosen, Russ. amb., Aug. 2, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Aug. 3, 1905; Mr. Adee to Jap. chargé, Aug. 8, 1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Sept. 19, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Baron Rosen, Sept. 21, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Takahira, Jap. min., Sept. 21, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Sept. 21, 1905; Baron Rosen, Russ. amb., to Dept. of State, July 27, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, July 31, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Hioki, Jap. chargé, No. 211, July 31, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Aug. 2, 1905; Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Aug. 7, 1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Aug. 9, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Oct. 7, 1905; Mr. Bacon, Act. Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Oct. 11, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Oct. 13, 1905; Mr. Root, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Oct. 18, 1905; Mr. Bonaparte, Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Oct. 20, 1905; Mr. Darling, Act. Sec. of Navy, to Sec. of State, Oct. 28, 1905; Mr. Root, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Navy, Nov. 2, 1905; Mr. Root, Sec. of State, to Baron Rosen, Russ. amb., Nov. 2, 1905; MS. Dept. of State.

As to the case of the Lena, see infra, § 1317.

(2) ORDINARY DAMAGE: LIMITATIONS; INTERNMENT.

§ 1317.

The Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Temerario, which was reported to have been sent down the coast of South America to intercept the U. S. S. Oregon on her way around Cape Horn to Cuba, was permitted by the Paraguayan Government to lie up during the war at Asuncion, in a condition of disability unfitting her for service.

On August 12, 1904, the Russian cruiser Askold and the Russian torpedo-boat destroyer Grozoroi, which had escaped from Port Arthur, arrived at Shanghai, where they sought to obtain repairs. On the 17th of August they were visited by Chinese officials, who reported that the repairs of the Grozovoi would consume eighteen days and those of the Askold twenty-eight. On the 19th of August the taotai notified the Russian consul-general that the vessels had been in Shanghai seven days, and that he would require the Grozovoi to leave within twenty-four hours and the Askold to complete her repairs within forty-eight hours, and to go out within twenty-four thereafter. This demand the Russian consul-general refused. Meanwhile, the Standard Oil Company had asked protection for their plant, near which the Askold lay, in case the latter should be attacked by the Japanese. On the 20th of August the taotai wrote to the senior consul and disclaimed further responsibility for anything that might happen. The consul-general of the United States called a meeting of the consular body to consult what action the neutral powers should take. Meanwhile, he was instructed by his Government that, although he was to protest against any act endangering neutral interests, he was not competent, in union with the consular body, to give effect to China's neutrality; that he was to safeguard only, as far as possible, American neutral interests if threatened, but was not to commit himself to any theory that the United States could be called upon by China or by the foreign consuls to guarantee Chinese neutrality. At the same time, the American minister at Peking was directed to use his influence to support the Government of China in its demand for the neutrality of its waters. The taotai at Shanghai subsequently notified the Russian consulgeneral that both boats must complete their repairs by noon of the 23d of August and leave immediately thereafter. The Russian consul-general again refused to comply with the taotai's demand, and, as the repairs were being executed by a British company, over which the taotai had no control, the latter applied to the British consulgeneral, in order that the work might be stopped. The British consul-general, after consultation with the Russian consul-general, gave notice that work would stop on the 24th of August. On that day the taotai received a dispatch from the Russian consul-general to the effect that both vessels were to be disarmed. On the 27th of August Prince Ch'ing informed the American minister at Peking that the commanders of the Russian vessels had agreed to lower their flags on the evening of the 25th of August; that this was to be considered as equivalent to disarmament, and that the soldiers would be withdrawn and the sailors sent home, in accordance with the precedent established in the case of the Mandjur. Prince Ching further stated that a telegram had at once been sent to the taotai to

see that this was carried out, with the result that there would be no damage to the property of the Standard Oil Company or other foreign interests at Shanghai.

For. Rel. 1904, 137-146.

It appears that in the case of the Russian cruiser Askold and the destroyer Grozoroi the Japanese Government on the 19th of August notified Peking that the Russian ships should be required to leave Shanghai, either immediately or, if necessary, after two days' repairs to make them seaworthy; and that, if they were unwilling to leave Shanghai, they should be disarmed without making any repairs and detained in port till the conclusion of the war. In the event of China's failure to enforce either of these three alternatives, the Japanese Government reserved the right to take such self-protective measures as it might deem necessary, reponsibility for the consequences to rest with China. Subsequently, in view of the difficult position of the Chinese Government, Japan consented to a delay till the 21st of August; and when the Chinese Government granted on the 23d of August an extension for repairs and for the departure of the ships till noon of the 28th, the Japanese Government again protested.

For. Rel. 1904, 426.

In connection with the arrival at Shanghai of the Russian cruiser Askold, the American consul-general was instructed that he was not to commit himself to any theory that the United States could be called on by China or by the foreign consuls to guarantee Chinese neutrality; that he was to safeguard only, as far as possible, American neutral interests if threatened, and to avoid all indications of general policy, and that the utmost circumspection was required.

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, min. to China, tel., Aug. 23, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 137.

The American minister at Peking was at the same time directed to use his influence to support the Chinese Government in its demand for the neutrality in Chinese waters, since an abuse of her neutrality by one of the belligerents would naturally provoke reprisals by the other. (Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Conger, tel., Aug. 26, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 137.)

In August, 1904, Dr. von Mühlberg, imperial acting secretary of state for foreign affairs, stated that the Russian ships which had taken refuge at Tsingtau, including the battle ship Cesarevitch and three torpedo boats, had been disarmed by the German authorities and would not be allowed to repair. Dr. von Mühlberg remarked that the principles of international law with regard to the repair of belligerent ships in neutral ports were very difficult of application,