ships Variag and Korietz in Chemulpo, Korea, is of interest in this connection. It is as follows: Japan severed her diplomatic relations with Russia on February 6, 1904, and was considered to be at war with Russia after that date. On February 8, Admiral Urio, commanding a Japanese force, demanded that the Russian vessels above-mentioned should leave the harbor before noon of the 9th of February. During the forenoon of the 9th the Russian vessels started out and a short action occurred, after which these vessels returned and the Variag was abandoned and sunk and the Korietz blown up. Before this time, on the midnight of the 8th, the Japanese land forces which had been previously landed, were in effective possession of the town of Chemulpo. Boats from the neutral men-of-war in port after the fight rescued the personnel of the Variag and put them on board of the British cruiser Talbot and the Italian war vessel Elba. The crew from the Korietz left that vessel before she was blown up and took refuge on board the French vessel of war Pascal. The Japanese admiral did not demand the surrender of the rescued Russians, but representatives of France, Great Britain, and Italy in Seoul conferred with the Japanese representative, and it was agreed that the rescued persons should be taken to Chinese ports with the understanding that they were not to serve again until the end of the war. This action was in accordance with Convention X in Articles 13, 14, and 15. In case shipwrecked belligerents are landed in neutral territory by their rescuers who are not men-of-war, it is proper to release them provided that they give their word not to serve again during that war. In this case it is understood that no belligerent man-of-war is in sight or has made a demand. 199. Destruction of Neutral Prizes.-This was one of the subjects concerning which an agreement was reached at the London naval conference. It was generally conceded at this conference that in principle a neutral prize ought not to be destroyed but should be taken to a prize-court; but under the stress of necessity, military necessity bordering upon selfpreservation, a vessel otherwise liable to be condemned might be destroyed, subject to indemnity in an unjustifiable case, and provided that the papers and the persons on board be properly cared for. "Art. 48. A neutral vessel which has been captured may not be destroyed by the captor; she must be taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture."1 This establishes the principle as to destruction. "Art. 49. As an exception, a neutral vessel which has been captured by a belligerent war-ship, and which would be liable to condemnation, may be destroyed if the observance of Article 48 would involve danger to the safety of the war-ship or to the success of the operations in which she is engaged at the time. "Art. 50. Before the vessel is destroyed all persons on board must be placed in safety and all the ship's papers and other documents which the parties interested consider relevant for the purpose of deciding on the validity of the capture must be taken on board the war-ship. "Art. 51. A captor who has destroyed a neutral vessel must, prior to any decision respecting the validity of the prize, establish that he only acted in the face of an exceptional necessity of the nature contemplated in Article 49. If he fails to do this, he must compensate the parties interested, and no examination shall be made of the question whether the capture was valid or not. "Art. 52. If the capture of a neutral vessel is subsequently held to be invalid, though the act of destruction has been held to have been justifiable, the captor must pay compensation to the parties interested, in place of the restitution to which they would have been entitled. 1 See Appendix IV, declaration of London. "Art. 53. If neutral goods not liable to condemnation have been destroyed with the vessel, the owner of such goods is entitled to compensation. "Art. 54. The captor has the right to demand the handing over, or to proceed himself to the destruction of, any goods liable to condemnation found on board a vessel not herself liable to condemnation, provided that the circumstances are such as would, under Article 49, justify the destruction of a vessel herself liable to condemnation. The captor must enter the goods surrendered or destroyed in the log-book of the vessel stopped, and must obtain duly certified copies of all relevant papers. When the goods have been handed over or destroyed, and the formalities duly carried out, the master must be allowed to continue his voyage. "The provisions of Articles 51 and 52 respecting the obligations of a captor who has destroyed a neutral vessel are applicable."1 Article 50 of the laws and usages of war at sea, known as United States Naval War Code, makes no discrimination between the destruction of enemy and neutral merchant prizes when necessity requires it. This code was embodied in the instructions of the United States to the American delegation at London. The question of the destruction of neutral prizes at sea occasioned very considerable discussion in England, to an extent arising from the destruction of the British ship Knight-Commander and some others during the Russo-Japanese War. An English author in a book treating of the subject of the declaration of London sums up upon this particular question as follows: "The articles of the declaration, though they are not as deterrent as might have been desired, are at least calculated to secure more respect for the neutral and to place a larger measure of responsibility on the belligerent than was witnessed in 1 See Appendix IV, declaration of London. the American Civil and the Russo-Japanese Wars. Of course there is no reason why Great Britain should depart from her present custom of not sinking neutral prizes, save in very exceptional circumstances; and our abundance of ports in every ocean makes it more feasible for our cruisers than for those of other nations to bring their prizes in for adjudication. We are thus enabled to gain by adding the captured vessels to our marine and confiscating their cargo; and with the new limitation on the right to destroy, our traders will be able to secure compensation in any case where their captured vessels would not have been liable to condemnation if they had been brought in for adjudication instead of being destroyed. The outcry against destruction of prizes is largely founded upon the fact that neutral vessels have been sunk by their captors which should not by the law of nations have been condemned at all. Now, the circumstances in which a neutral vessel is liable to condemnation are quite clearly laid down by the declaration and the obligation of the belligerent to pay full compensation to the neutral ship owner and cargo owner where a prize is sunk which is not legally liable to condemnation, and, lastly, the power which the neutral will have, if the declaration and the prize-court are ratified, of taking the question of the validity of the destruction to an international tribunal which will have no prejudice in favor of the belligerent, form together a combination of safeguards which should prevent outrages upon neutral commerce such as the Russo-Japanese War produced, and should make the right of sinking prizes in future wars exceptional in fact as well as in theory."1 1 Norman Bentwich, "Declaration of London," p. 98. TOPICS AND REFERENCES 1. The Carriage of Persons and Despatches for the Enemy Hall, "International Law," 6th ed., 674-685. Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 752-768. Higgins, "Peace Conferences," 593-7. 2. The Case of the Trent Harris, "The Trent Affair." Dana, note 228 to Wheaton, 8th ed., 664. Atherley-Jones, "Commerce in War," 311-315. 3. The Opening to Neutrals of a Trade Closed in Peace Higgins, "War and the Private Citizen," part V. Moore's "Digest," vol. VII, 1104-9. Hall, 6th ed., 631-2. Mahan, "Some Neglected Aspects of War," 191. 4. Rescue of Shipwrecked Belligerents by Neutral VesselsHiggins, "Hague Conferences," Convention X, 367-389. Naval War College, "Topics," etc., 1904, 117-128. Oppenheim, 2d ed., vol. II, 252-262. 5. Destruction of Neutral Prizes Hershey, "Essentials," 520-2. Naval War College, "International |