firms, most of which are conducting regular trade with Japan; therefore one can not suppose that because the manifest was missing it was intended to conceal the ownership to the cargo; most certainly it can not be considered that the missionary society had the intention of transporting contraband goods. The nature of the goods do not change because of the fact that the steamer for this trip was chartered by the firm of "Howard, Hulder, Rowel & Co." The conclusion of the protocol that the vessel was arrested because it was chartered by the said firm "for the transportation of various railway and other material to Japan"—that is to say, that it was engaged in carrying military contraband—is not in any way confirmed; nothing in the case shows that Messrs. Howard, Hulder, Rowel & Co. went out of their business as ordinary steamship agents— that is to say, accepted various kind of goods without any ulterior object. Information as to the cargo was contained, however, in the captain's books Nos. 4 and 5. The court, however, in designating these books as private, did not recognize their existence as pertaining to the case, nor as worthy of confidence. It is incomprehensible, however, why the court considered the captain's pressletter copy book (without doubt it had the same character, which book, in the opinion of the court, is the main proof which throws insincerity on the part of the captain and demonstrates that the cargo was consigned to Chemulpo for the use of the Japanese Army). Furthermore, this book contains an entry which does away with this supposition, namely, "Until your letter of yesterday I was under the impression that we had to discharge at Chemulpo."

The supposition advanced by the court, claiming that the missing cargo documents were hidden by the captain, is not in any way supported; on the contrary, it is denied by the copies of the bills of lading I have herewith presented; the latter show the peaceful nature of the cargo and its real destination. In our belief they have special importance, especially in view of the superficial and insufficient search which was made by the officers. On the ground of this search, the commander of the cruiser detachment, and later on the Vladivostok prize court, found that a large portion of the cargo consisted of contraband of war. Referring to the protocol drawn up after the search, we remark the following: No. 1, Lieutenant Gavrishenko says: "The nature of the cargo, as far as I could see in the hatchways, was railway material," but he omits to state in what way he arrived at this conclusion. According to a list of articles which he submitted, as in his opinion consisting of railway material, it is seen that many of them (boiler tubes, cogwheels, coal, iron bars, telegraph wire, and barrels with cement) might have no relation at all with railways. He states: “In the center hatchway were many cases of various dimensions." It is clear that these cases were not opened, and, their contents not having been examined, the character of said contents could not be determined. "In the after hatchway the cargo was also mostly railway material, although there were bales, as I have had explained, of wrapping paper and cases." It is entirely incomprehensible to us how Lieutenant Gavrishenko could come to the conclusion that the larger part of the cargo was railway material, if he says there were bales, the contents of which were explained to him by the captain. At the same time he adds that most of the railway material consisted of machinery which he could not define, as it was stowed at the very bottom of the hold, but he supposes (without giving his reasons therefor) that these were pumps. In other holds there were carefully packed bales and cases, which were not examined, but which were taken for granted as being railway material. It is difficult to recognize oneself to consider such a search as carrying any weight. Referring to protocol No. 2, drawn up by Midshipman Aminoff, we see that it also bears a superficial and obscure character. Midshipman Aminoff, in three places of the protocol, declares that he saw several articles, some of which appeared to him as parts of trucks. He only "peeped" into the foreholds; the iron he saw appeared to him to be railway car springs; he did not open any of the cases in the holds. He, however, does not go as far as Gavrishenko (who declares that the total cargo was railway material), but simply states that "the cargo was exclusively of iron." (It must be remarked that a cargo of iron is not by any means contraband of war.)

From the foregoing it is evident that these protocols can not be given serious consideration. The deduction, that the cargo was railway material, was arrived at by the officers in question at a great distance from the cargo, no proper inspection having been made; a large portion of the cargo, in bales and cases, were not even opened nor examined and was unknown to them; thus, that the

cargo was mostly railway material or even iron can not be in any way considered in the light on which they make their declarations. The data to hand brings one to the conclusion that the captain had no need whatever to conceal the cargo documents, if he had them. This supposition of the court can not consequently have any weight on which to base the decision.

Regarding the deposition of the captain we must remark that his examination, although not under oath, was illegal, inasmuch as the captain is the representative of the cargo owners and of the parties in this case, and can not therefore be examined in the capacity of a witness.

The captain's deposition can not serve as convictory evidence, for the following reasons:

(1) Captain Durant was examined under circumstances which precludes the possibility of making his deposition of any legal weight.

(2) His deposition that he did not know the exact quantity of cargo, by various categories is explained by his deposition that he never signed any bills of lading, but only saw some of them at Shanghai (protocol No. 5).

Furthermore the court allowed a most irregular infringement as to article 71 of the instructions relative to prizes, namely, that the owners of goods were not summoned through publication and were thereby prevented from giving explanations and presenting their documents proving the true character and destination of the cargo.

Finally, in considering the decision of the Vladivostok prize court, we find the following inaccuracies:

In its decision the prize court (par. 2) found that the cargo carried by the vessel (a list thereof follows) is subject to confiscation as forming contraband of war. Whereas among the goods in the list were steel sheets intended to be used in making tin cases for conserves; in the railway material were included steel and tubes intended for an electric railway, neither of which could be contraband of war. In paragraph 3 the decision finds that the said cargo at the time of seizure formed more than half of the vessel's total cargo, a fact which is "not proven," while on the contrary it appears doubtful when examining the bills of lading herewith presented. In the decision of the Vladivostok prize court we find the following considerations: "From this data one may conclude that the cargo on the said vessel at the time of its seizure consisted of the following articles: Rails, various parts of railway bridges, steel, steel sheets, nails, wire, tubes, wheel grease, acids, shovels, and a small quantity of mixed goods. (List of goods follows, which in no way can be classed as contraband of war.) Thus it may be considered fully proved that the vessel Knight Commander was arrested by Russian cruisers while transporting contraband of war to the enemy's ports.

One can not agree wih such a conclusion if one but considers separately the list of goods given as "various railway material" and in view of its indefiniteness we will not look into it; steel sheets intended for the manufacture of conserve cans, tubes intended for electric railroad, tar, acids, nails, and shovels can not be recognized as contraband of war, as they are not mentioned in the declaration. There only remain rails and parts of bridges which form conditional contraband in case they are intended for the enemy.

In view of the facts laid forth, that the examination of the vessel by the offi cers of the Russian cruiser gave no exact facts for establishing the contraband character of the cargo, and in view of this that the sinking of the steamer was illegal and an injustice to my clients, as well as opposed to all the rules of civilized warfare, I consider them subject to compensation, and have the honor to ask

(1) That the cargo on the steamer Knight Commander, belonging to the companies "Wasserman" Healing, American Trading Company, and the Methodist Missionary Society, be considered neutral and not subject to confiscation.

(2) That the decision of the Vladivostok prize court be reversed in this respect; and

(3) That my clients be compensated for the value of the lost cargo and that damages for losses be allowed them.

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA AND THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS.

No. 467.]

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, March 17, 1906. SIR: The department's dispatches Nos. 57 and 62, dated July 24 and August 1, 1905, respectively, inclosing papers from the Japanese legation at Washington bringing to the attention of the Russian Government certain violations of the Geneva convention alleged to have been committed by members of the Russian army, were at once referred to the ministry for foreign affairs.

I am now in receipt of a note replying to both of the Japanese letters, and beg leave to inclose a copy of the ministerial note, dated March 1/14, together with a copy of the inclosure transmitted therein and a translation of the same.

I have, etc.,

G. VON L. MEYER.

[Inclosure. Translation.]

Copy of a communication of the general staff dated February 16, 1906; No. 98. With regard to the question of the violation of the rules of the Geneva convention by a detachment of Adjutant-General Mistchenko and by Colonel Müller, temporary, commander of the First Brigade of the Thirty-first Infantry division, communicated by the minister of foreign affairs to the minister of war, under date of August 12, 1905, sub No. 4468, the chief administration of the general staff communicates as follows:

(1) In accordance with the report of the commander of the Fourth Ural Cossack Regiment, it is seen that on May 5, 1905, the advance guard of the sixth company (hundredth) of the said regiment was fired upon from a village (name unknown); upon the approach of the main forces a squadron of the enemy's cavalry galloped away from the village; the firing continued, and a military movement was observed; supposing that this was a forward movement, the Cossacks made an attack, and upon advancing they saw commissary wagons in the village; some of the armed men who accompanied the wagons defended themselves, others tried to escape; a large number were made prisoners and disarmed.

A number of the two-wheeled wagons tried to make their escape and were pursued; the Japanese attendants of the two-wheeled wagons defended themselves with their arms, wounding two Cossacks (Terentia Budarnikoff and Samuel Tianoukhin), and this caused the Cossacks to follow up the attack, during which they killed 4 Japanese and wounded 2 others.

In this affair a Japanese surgeon who defended himself with his sword against the Cossacks was taken prisoner. This surgeon, by orders from Adjutant-General Mistchenko, was released on May 7, together with 15 hospital nurses, at the village of Tsinsiantao, in order to attend to 49 wounded Japanese belonging to the reserve infantry regiment, the hospital detachment having been equipped with ample supplies.

During the skirmish the sign of the Red Cross was not displayed; that the wagons belonged to the hospital staff was only discovered after they were captured.

Besides the hospital wagons there were also commissary depots in the same village, which were destroyed.

According to the report of the adjutant-general, Mistchenko, among the prisoners made during this skirmish of May 5 there were 7 men belonging to the infantry division.

a Printed in Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 755.

Every possible attention was afforded the prisoners and women during their transportation to the divisional headquarters in small carts; before sending the prisoners to the staff of the army they were questioned as to any claims or declarations they had to make; these claims amounted to 25 roubles, which sum was paid to them.

In view of the fact that the raid of the cavalry detachment of AdjutantGeneral Mistchenko was undertaken specially with a view to the destruction of all kinds of military stores belonging to the enemy, the action of the Fourth Ural Cossack Regiment against the enemy's wagons, which displayed no signs of belonging to the hospital service, and besides this, the attendants of which replied to the attack with rifle fire, must be recognized as absolutely correct, and no violation of the regulations of the Geneva convention occurred.

(2) It has been impossible to ascertain on what basis the order contained in the above-named letter was issued by the temporary commander of the First Brigade of the Thirty-first Infantry division, inasmuch as the headquarters papers of the brigade and of the staff of the Thirty-first Infantry division were lost during the battle of Mukden, and Major-General Müller does not recollect issuing any such orders or any reason for so doing. Correct copy. (Signature illegible.)

RESUMPTION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND

JAPAN.

(See correspondence with Japan, p. 1087.)

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram.-Paraphrase.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, February 9, 1906. (Mr. Meyer reports, in reference to the department's cable of February 6, that the Government of Russia will certainly recognize Mr. Motono as the Japanese minister when he arrives at St. Petersburg, and is willing to make it easy for him to exercise his functions before his official letters of credence arrive.)

No. 435.]

EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS OF WAR.

(Continued from Foreign Relations 1905, p. 800.)

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN EMBASSY,
St. Petersburg, February 9, 1906.

SIR: I have the honor to confirm my two cipher cablegrams sent on January 30 and February 2, respectively, regarding the exchange of Japanese prisoners of war in the Far East. True readings of the cablegrams will be found inclosed.

In this connection I beg leave to inclose copy of a note, dated January 25, February 5, from the ministry for foreign affairs, bearing upon the matter.

I have, etc.,

G. VON L. MEYER.

a See correspondence with Japan, p. 1086.

[Inclosure. Translation.]

The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs to Ambassador Meyer.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, FIRST DEPARTMENT,

St. Petersburg, January 24, 1906.

Mr. AMBASSADOR: Referring to your excellency's note dated October 26— November 8 last-I have the honor to inform you that, according to a communication of the ministry of war, 4 officers and 100 soldiers, on December 2 last, and on the 16th of the same month 30 Japanese soldiers, prisoners of war, were sent to Gunjulin, there to be delivered to the Japanese military authorities. There are still in the hospitals in the rear of the army 40 prisoners who, after recovery, will be brought together at Kharbine, whence they will be forwarded by echelons to Gunjulin.

Accept, etc.,

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram.-Paraphrase.]

OBOLENSKY.

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, February 2, 1906.

(Mr. Meyer states that the report of the general staff is that the Japanese prisoners of war who were in the rear have been sent forward, for exchange, to Gunjulin; on December 22, Russian style, there were 4 superior officers and 100 men, and on the 16th of December, Russian style, 34 men. There are still about 40 more Japanese prisoners in the hospitals in the rear, who will be brought, as soon as their health permits, to Harbkra and from there sent in parties to the south of Gunjulin.)

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

[Telegram.-Paraphrase.]

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, February 9, 1906. (Mr. Meyer states that he has just been informed by the minister for foreign affairs that General Linevitch had notified Marshal Oyama, by a direct official communication on the 15th (28th) December, of the number and arrangements of the mines placed in the waters of Sakhalin by the imperial fleet and in Korea.)

No. 511.]

RESIGNATION OF COUNT WITTE.

Ambassador Meyer to the Secretary of State.

AMERICAN EMBASSY,

St. Petersburg, May 15, 1906.

SIR: I beg leave to report that on May 2 Count Witte's resignation was accepted and the Czar named Goremykin to succeed him. Since then all the ministers have resigned, and the cabinet is now up as follows:

made