can not assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of the principles of international law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned in Article I arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of those claims, the arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's Government has undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in these rules.

And the high contracting parties agree to observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to invite them to accede to them.

Prof. Moore says:

As to the second rule, the Case of the United States said that it was not understood "to apply to the sale of military supplies or arms in the ordinary course of commerce," but "to the use of a neutral port by a belligerent for the renewal or augmentation of such military supplies or arms for the naval operations referred to in the rule." "The ports or waters of the neutral are not," continued the Case, "to be made the base of naval operations by a belligerent. Vessels of war may come and go under such rules and regulations as the neutral may prescribe; food and the ordinary stores and supplies of a ship not of a warlike charcter may be furnished without question, in quantities necessary for immediate wants; the moderate hospitalities which do not infringe upon impartiality may be extended, but no act shall be done to make the neutral port a base of operations. Ammunition and military stores for cruisers can not be obtained there; coal can not be stored there for successive supplies to the same vessel, nor can it be furnished or obtained in such supplies; prizes can not be brought there for condemnation. 'The repairs that humanity demands can be given, but no repairs should add to the strength or efficiency of a vessel beyond what is absolutely necessary to gain the nearest of its own ports. In the same sense are to be taken the clauses relating to the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms and the recruitment of men. As the vessel enters the port, so is she to leave it, without addition to her effective power of doing injury to the other belligerent. If her magazine is supplied with powder, shot, or shells; if new guns are added to her armament; if pistols, or muskets, or cutlasses, or other implements of destruction are put on board; if men are recruited; even if, in these days when steam is a power, an excessive supply of coal is put into her bunkers the neutral will have failed in the performance of its duty." (Moore, International Arbitrations, v. 1, p. 574.)

In discussion of the subject the British Case announces:

1. A neutral government is bound to exercise due diligence to the intent that no place within its territory be made use of by either belligerent as a base or point of departure for a military or naval expedition, or for hostilities by land or sea.

2. A neutral government is not, by force of the above-mentioned obligation or otherwise, bound to prevent or restrain the sale within its territory, to a belligerent, of articles contraband of war, or the manufacture within its territory of such articles to the order of a belligerent, or the delivery thereof within its territory to a belligerent purchaser, or the exportation of such articles from its territory for sale to, or for the use of, a belligerent.

3. Nor is a neutral government bound, by force of the abovementioned obligation or otherwise, to prohibit or prevent vessels of war in the service of a belligerent from entering or remaining in its ports or waters, or from purchasing provisions, coal, or other supplies, or undergoing repairs therein; provided that the same facilities be accorded to both belligerents indifferently; and provided also that such vessels be not permitted to augment their military force, or increase or renew their supplies of arms or munitions of war, or of men, within the neutral territory. (Ibid, p. 599.)

The award made by the Geneva tribunal states—

In order to impart to any supplies of coal a character inconsistent with the second rule, prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters, as a base of naval operations for a belligerent, it is necessary that the said supplies should be connected with special circumstances of time, of persons, or of place, which may combine to give them such character. (Ibid, p. 655.)

Opinion of the Institute of International Law, 1875.The Institute of International Law considered the rules of the treaty of Washington in 1875 and adopted the following among its propositions:

IV. De même l'État neutre ne doit ni permettre ni souffrir que l'un des belligérants fasse de ses ports ou de ses eaux, la base d'opérations navales contre l'autre, ou que les vaisseaux de transport militaire se servent de ses ports ou de ses eaux, pour renouveler ou augmenter leurs approvisionnements militaires ou leurs armes ou pour recruter des hommes. (1 Annuaire, 1875, p. 139.)

Brazilian proclamation, 1898.—The proclamation issued by Brazil during the Spanish-American War of 1898

60252-12-10

provides more than usual in detail for the conduct of belligerent vessels in Brazilian ports.

VIII. No ship with the flag of one of the belligerents employed in the war, or destined for the same, may be provisioned, equipped, or armed in the ports of the Republic, the furnishing of victuals and naval stores which it may absolutely need and the things indispensable for the continuation of its voyage not being included in this prohibition.

IX. The last provision of the preceding section presupposes that the ship is bound for a certain port, and that it is only en ronte and puts into a port of the Republic through stress of circumstances. This, moreover, will not be considered as verified if the same ship tries the same port repeated times, or after having been relieved in one port should subsequently enter another, under the same pretext, except in proven cases of compelling circumstances. Therefore, repeated visits without a sufficiently justified motive would authorize the suspicion that the ship is not really en route, but is frequenting the seas near Brazil in order to make prizes of hostile ships. In such cases asylum or succor given to a ship would be characterized as assistance or favor given against the other belligerent, being thus a breach of neutrality.

Therefore, a ship which shall once have entered one of our ports shall not be received in that or another shortly after having left the first, in order to take victuals, naval stores, or make repairs, except in a duly proved case of compelling circumstances, unless after a reasonable interval which would make it seem probable that the ship had left the coast of Brazil and had returned after having finished the voyage she was undertaking.

X. The movements of the belligerent will be under the supervision of the customs authorities from the time of entrance until that of departure for the purpose of verifying the proper character of the things put on board.

XI. The ships of belligerents shall take material for combustion only for the continuance of their voyage.

Furnishing coal to ships which sail the seas near Brazil for the purpose of making prizes of an enemy's vessels or prosecuting any other kind of hostile operations is prohibited.

A ship which shall have once received material for combustion in our ports shall not be allowed a new supply there unless there shall have elapsed a reasonable interval which makes it probable that said ship has returned after having finished its voyage to a foreign port.

XII. It will not be permitted to either of the belligerents to receive in the ports of the Republic goods coming directly for them in the ships of any nation whatever.

This means that the belligerents may not seek ports en route and on account of an unforeseen necessity, while having the intention of remaining in the vicinity of the coasts of Brazil, taking thus beforehand the necessary precautions to furnish themselves with the means of continuing their enterprises. The tolerance of such an abuse would be equivalent to allowing our ports to serve as a base of operations for the belligerents. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 847.)

These same rules were regarded by Brazil as operative in 1904. (U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 16.)

Question at The Hague, 1907.-The matter of the use of territory as a base received considerable attention at the Second Hague Conference in 1907.

In the questionnaire proposed in annex 49 by the subcommittee it is asked:

III. Dans quelle mesure doit-il être interdit aux navires de guerre des belligérants d'utiliser les ports neutres et les eaux territoriales?

Lieu d'observation.

Rendez-vous.

Passage.

Base d'opérations de guerre.

Constitution d'un tribunal de prises.

Buts militaires de toute nature.

Paix, Tome 111, p. 705.)

(Deuxième Conférence de la

The replies to this question, particularly as relate to the use of the territory of a neutral as a base, show some difference as to the degree of stringency of proposed rules and ideas as to what constitute a base.

SPAIN.

ARTICLE 1. Il ne sera pas permis aux vaisseaux de guerre d'entrer ou de séjourner dans les ports ou les eaux neutres, en les prenant comme bases d'opérations de guerre, quelle que soit la nature de ces opérations.

GREAT BRITAIN.

(9) Un État neutre devra empêcher, dans la mesure du possible, qu'une partie de son territoire ou de ses eaux territoriales ne serve de base d'opérations à une flotte belligérante.

(10) Un territoire neutre ou des eaux territoriales neutres seront considérés comme servant de base d'opérations à un beiligérant lorsque, entre autres:

(a) Il a été installé sur le territoire neutre ou à bord d'un navire dans les eaux neutres une station radio-télégraphique ou tout autre appareil destiné à maintenir la communication avec les navires de guerre du belligérant.

(b) Les navires belligérants se feront ravitailler dans les eaux neutres par des vaisseaux auxiliaires de leur flotte.

JAPAN.

(1) Il est interdit aux navires belligérants de se servir des ports et des eaux neutres soit comme lieu d'observations ou de rendez-vous, soit comme bases d'opérations de guerre ou de buts militaires de toute nature.

RUSSIA.

(3) Est également interdit aux dits bâtiments de se servir des ports et des eaux territoriales neutres comme de bases d'opérations de guerre. (Ibid., pp. 705, 706.)

Another question was also proposed which related to the subject of the amount of coal which could be taken. XII. Dans quelle mesure pourront-ils s'y approvisionner de vivres et de charbon?

To this question several States replied.

SPAIN.

ART. 5. Les vaisseaux belligérants ne pourront, pendant leur séjour dans les ports ou les eaux neutres, charger du matériel de guerre, ni aucun approvisionnement de nature à augmenter leur force militaire. Ils pourront toutefois, se pourvoir des vivres et du charbon nécessaires pour atteindre le port le plus rapproché de leur pays ou un port neutre plus proche encore.

GREAT BRITAIN.

(17) Une puissance neutre ne devra pas permettre sciemment à un navire de guerre d'un belligérant se trouvant dans sa juridiction de prendre à bord des munitions, vivres ou combustibles si ce n'est dans le cas où les munitions, vivres ou combustibles déjà à bord du navire ne lui suffiraient pas pour gagner le port le plus proche de son propre pays; la quantité de munitions,