Изображения страниц

auguries of good and cordial relations between friends too old to be alienated thoughtlessly or from mere impatience." (Dip. Cor. 1861, 371.)

Special attention may be directed to the note of Baron Van Zuylen of Sept. 17, 1861, as a singularly forcible and able discussion of the question of asylum.

"Whereas on the 22d day of August, 1870, my proclamation was issued [see infra, § 1319, p. 1007], enjoining neutrality in the present war between France and the North German Confederation and its allies, and declaring, so far as then seemed to be necessary, the respective rights and obligations of the belligerent parties and of the citizens of the United States; and whereas subsequent information gives reason to apprehend that armed cruisers of the belligerents may be tempted to abuse the hospitality accorded to them in the ports, harbors, roadsteads, and other waters of the United States, by making such waters subservient to the purposes of war:

"Now, therefore, I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim and declare that any frequenting and use of the waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States by the armed vessels of either belligerent, whether public ships or privateers, for the purpose of preparing for hostile operations, or as posts of observation upon the ships of war or privateers or merchant vessels of the other belligerent lying within or being about to enter the jurisdiction of the United States, must be regarded as unfriendly and offensive, and in violation of that neutrality which it is the determination of this Government to observe; and to the end that the hazard and inconvenience of such apprehended practices may be avoided, I further proclaim and declare that, from and after the 12th day of October instant, and during the continuance of the present hostilities between France and the North German Confederation and its allies, no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted to make use of any port, harbor, roadstead, or other waters within the jurisdiction of the United States as a station or place of resort for any warlike purpose, or for the purpose of obtaining any facilities of warlike equipment; and no ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted to sail out of or leave any port, harbor, or roadstead, or waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from which a vessel of the other belligerent (whether the same shall be a ship of war, a privateer, or a merchant ship) shall have previously departed, until after the expiration of at least twenty-four hours from the departure of such last-mentioned vessel beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall, after the time this notification takes effect, enter any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States, such vessel shall be required to depart and to

put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or for repairs; in either of which cases the authorities of the port or of the nearest port (as the case may be) shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel which may have been permitted to remain within the waters of the United States for the purpose of repair shall continue within such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters for a longer period than twentyfour hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed, unless within such twenty-four hours a vessel, whether ship of war, privateer, or merchant ship of the other belligerent, shall have departed there from, in which case the time limited for the departure of such ship of war or privateer shall be extended so far as may be necessary to secure an interval of not less than twenty-four hours between such departure and that of any ship of war, privateer, or merchant ship of the other belligerent which may have previously quit the same port, harbor, roadstead, or waters. No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be detained in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States more than twenty-four hours, by reason of the successive departures from such port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of more than one vessel of the other belligerent. But if there be several vessels of each or either of the two belligerents in the same port, harbor, roadstead, or waters, the order of their departure therefrom shall be so arranged as to afford the opportunity of leaving alternately to the vessels of the respective belligerents, and to cause the least detention consistent with the objects of this proclamation. No ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any port, harbor, roadstead, or waters within the jurisdiction of the United States, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel, if without sail power, to the nearest European port of her own country; or in case the vessel is rigged to go under sail, and may also be propelled by steam power, then with half the quantity of coal which she would be entitled to receive if dependent upon steam alone; and no coal shall be again supplied to any such ship of war or privateer in the same or any other port, harbor, roadstead, or waters of the United States, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within the waters of the United States, unless such ship of war or privateer shall, since last thus supplied,

have entered a European port of the Government to which she belongs."

President Grant's proclamation of Oct. 8, 1870, For. Rel. 1870, 48.
October 10, 1870, Sir Edward Thornton wrote to Earl Granville, enclosing
a copy of the proclamation of the President of the United States of
the 8th of October, as to the treatment of armed vessels of the bellig-
erents in ports of the United States. Sir Edward Thornton said that
the issuance of this document had been instigated by the recent acts
of French vessels of war in the neighborhood of the port of New
York; that French gun-boats had lately moored at the entrance of
that port, and had sometimes anchored outside, within three miles
of the coast, for the purpose of intercepting any North German
vessels which might leave New York, and particularly the German
steamers which, in consequence of the termination of the blockade
of the German ports, had renewed their voyages. On one occasion
the French gun-boat Latouche Tréville steamed up the New York
bay, around the German steamer Hermann, went out again and
anchored outside. Recently a French frigate and two smaller
vessels of war had arrived at New London, Conn., on the pretext of
requiring repairs. They remained there for some days, though they
only had to repair some spars, which could have been done nearly as
well at sea as on shore. But from that point notice could be given
of the sailing of the German vessels from New York, and men-of-war
stationed at New London could easily intercept them. Mr. Fish, so Sir
Edward Thornton said, had told him that he had represented to the
French minister that, although he could not positively allege a viola-
tion of international law, he considered that the proceedings of
belligerent vessels of war in hovering about the entrance of a neutral
port, and as it were blockading it and making the neighborhood a
station for their observations, were contrary to custom, and were
unfriendly and uncourteous to the United States. Mr. Fish added
that Mr. Berthémy had written on the subject to the French admiral,
who, in reply, had denied the fact of hovering about the port, or of
using the neighborhood as a station of observation, but confessed
that the proceeding of the Latouche Tréville, in entering the port of
New York for the purpose of observing the German steamer, was
improper, and that her commander had consequently been severely
reproved. Sir Edward Thornton said that his Prussian colleague, in
expressing his satisfaction at the issuance of the proclamation, had
made observations indicating that he maintained that by its pro-
visions merchant vessels were prohibited from exporting arms and
ammunition from the ports of the United States for the use of the
belligerents, and he feared that Baron Gerolt might have telegraphed
in that sense to his Government. He did not feel called upon to
question Baron Gerolt's view of the case, but could find no expression
in the application which justified such an interpretation. Indeed,
Mr. Fish denied that it was intended to convey any such meaning.
(61 Br. & For. State Papers, 878.)

The foregoing proclamation is incorporated, mutatis mutandis, in the neutrality proclamation issued by President Roosevelt, Feb. 11, 1904, on the outbreak of the war between Russia and Japan.

For. Rel. 1904, 32.

"The Pacific fleet, under Commodore George Dewey, had lain for some weeks at Hongkong. Upon the colonial proclamation of neutrality being issued and the customary twenty-four hours' notice being given, it repaired to Mirs Bay, near Hongkong, whence it proceeded to the Philippine Islands under telegraphed orders to capture or destroy the formidable Spanish fleet then assembled at Manila."

President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1898, For. Rel. 1898, LVIII.

An incident of the early stages of the war between the United States and Spain suggests the need of an amplification of the rule by which a belligerent man-of-war is required, except in case of stress of weather or of need of provisions or repairs, to leave a neutral port within twenty-four hours after her arrival. On May 11, 1898, Captain Cotton, of the auxiliary cruiser Harvard, cabled from St. Pierre, Martinique, to the Secretary of the Navy that the Spanish torpedoboat destroyer Furor had touched during the afternoon at Fort de France, Martinique, and had afterwards left, destination unknown, and that the governor had ordered him not to sail within twenty-four hours from the time of the Furor's departure. At noon on the 12th of May Captain Cotton was informed by the captain of the port at St. Pierre that the Furor had about 8 a. m. again called at Fort de France and would leave about noon and that he might go to sea at 8 p. m.; but that if he did not do so he would be required to give the governor twenty-four hours' notice of his intention to leave the port. On the same day Captain Cotton received information which led him to telegraph to the Secretary of the Navy that he was closely observed and blockaded at St. Pierre by the Spanish fleet, and that the Spanish torpedo-boat destroyer Terror was at Fort de France. Later Captain Cotton cabled that the Spanish consul protested against his stay at St. Pierre, and that he had requested permission to remain a week to make necessary repairs to machinery. Replying to these reports, the Secretary of the Navy telegraphed to Captain Cotton as follows: "Vigorously protest against being forced out of the port in the face of superior blockading force, especially as you were detained previously in the port by the French authorities because Spanish men-of-war had sailed from another port. Also state that United States Government will bring the matter to the attention of the French Government. Urge the United States consul to protest vigorously." It proved to be unnecessary to take further action. Captain Cotton's request for time was granted. The governor showed no disposition to force him out of port, only requiring twenty-four hours' notice of an intention to sail; and the dangers to which the Harvard seemed to be exposed soon disappeared. It may be observed, however, that as the enforcement, under circumstances such as were described, of the twenty-four hours' limit would con

stitute a negation of the admitted privilege of asylum it is not likely that it would be held to be applicable in such a situation.

Naval Operations of the War with Spain, 383-389, 407–410.

During the war between the United States and Spain an interesting question arose as to the U. S. S. Monocacy in China. By communications of the Tsung-li yamên to Mr. Denby, United States minister at Peking, of May 2 and May 9, 1898, official announcement was made that the yamên had telegraphed the viceroys, governors, and taotaisgeneral of the Yangtze and maritime provinces to instruct their subordinates to observe the laws of neutrality. In the communication of the 9th of May it was stated that, in due observance of international law, vessels of war of the belligerents would not be allowed to "anchor in Chinese ports." In the proclamation of the taotai of Shanghai, issued May 22, 1898, it was more precisely declared that such vessels must not use Chinese-controlled waters and ports for anchorage or fighting purposes, or anchor there for lading war supplies; and that, should any such vessel enter a Chinese port, except under stress of weather or for necessary food or repairs, it must not remain over twenty-four hours. A question having arisen as to the applicability of these provisions to the Monocacy, an antiquated ship of war of light draft, which had, because of her adaptation to river service, for years been kept in Chinese waters for the protection of American citizens, the Government of the United States maintained. (1) that, as the circumstances of her long-continued employment and her unfitness for service at sea rendered it apparent that her presence was not connected with the war, she did not come within the operation of rules designed to prevent the use of neutral waters as a base of hostilities, and (2) that the existence of war between the United States and a third power could not deprive the former of the right to take the customary measures for the protection of its citizens in China.

Mr. Day, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 1593, June 7,
1898, MS. Inst. China, V. 566. The Monocacy remained in China.
For the proclamation of the taotai of Shanghai, see Proclamations and
Decrees during the War with Spain, 18-20.




The Buenos Ayrean privateer Juncal put in at Baltimore for the purpose of making repairs after an action at sea with a Brazilian cruiser. Under these circumstances, the collector of customs at Baltimore was instructed: Whilst you will not fail to allow her the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »