liable to the same treatment as an enemy merchant vessel for certain specific acts of greater gravity and more direct and valuable service to the enemy. Under the first head comes (1) neutral vessels on a voyage specially instituted with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy or with a view to the transmission of intelligence in the interest of the enemy; (2) neutral vessels with the knowledge of either the owner, the charterer or the master that are transporting military detachments of the enemy or one or more persons who, in the course of the voyage directly assists the operation of the enemy.

In the cases specified goods belonging to the owners of the vessels are likewise liable to condemnation. These penalties do not apply if the vessels are not aware of the existence of

war.

Neutral vessels under the second head are (1) those who take direct part in the hostilities; (2) neutral vessels under the orders or control of an agent placed on board by the enemy government; (3) neutral vessels in the exclusive employment of the enemy government; (4) neutral vessels at the time exclusively devoted either to the transport of enemy troops or to the transmission of intelligence in the interest of the enemy.

At the London Conference an attempt was made to incorporate the doctrine of the rule of 1756 by a proposition to treat as unneutral service the engagement of a neutral vessel, with the consent of the government of the enemy, in a trade forbidden in time of peace. This doctrine which would apply directly to our coasting trade and also to the trade with our insular possessions is not unneutral service when the service consists of innocent trade without military bias.

Two cases bordering upon the question of unneutral service may well be mentioned as matters of interest.

Case of the "Trent."-The first case, that of the "Trent," occurred on November 8, 1861. The "Trent," an English

mail steamer, making a passage from Havana to St. Thomas, was stopped in the Old Bahama Channel by the U. S. S. "San Jacinto," under the command of Captain Wilkes, and Messrs. Mason and Slidell, on their way as agents of the Confederate Government to France and England, with their secretaries, were taken on board the "San Jacinto " by force and held there as prisoners until the vessel reached Boston, where they were transferred to Fort Warren. The "Trent " was allowed to proceed upon her voyage, but great warlike feeling was aroused on both sides of the Atlantic. A demand was made for the return of Mason and Slidell by the British Government, with a suitable apology. The offense against Great Britain, in her view, arose from the fact that four individuals were taken out of a British ship on the high seas, pursuing an innocent voyage from one neutral port to another.

These Confederate agents were surrendered to Great Britain by Mr. Seward; the grounds stated being that they were contraband of war, but that they could not be legitimately separated from the ship which should also have been seized and sent to a prize court for adjudication.

Earl Russell, in answer to this, said that the persons captured were not contraband of war, as the "Trent" was pursuing a regular voyage and was bound for a neutral port, and that the office and character of the persons captured were not of a contraband character.

Mr. Thomas L. Harris, an American writer, in a book published a short time since, and devoted wholly to the narrative and discussion of the "Trent" affair, sums up very cogently the whole affair. To him, the following general conclusions seem to be warranted:

1. The commissioners were not contraband of war in any sense of that term.

2. Their dispatches being of a non-military character were not contraband of war.

3. A neutral power is entitled to hold necessary informal relations with an unrecognized belligerent.

4. The "Trent" had in no way violated her duties as a neutral ship when she was stopped by the San Jacinto.

5. Captain Wilkes had an undoubted right to stop and search the "Trent" for contraband of war. In the absence of anything of this character resistance to the right of search alone would have made the "Trent" liable to capture.

6. In any event, Captain Wilkes had no right to seize the persons or dispatches of the Confederate commissioners while they were on board the "Trent" on the high seas.

7. Viewed solely from the standpoint of international law, sound reasons were not given for the surrender of the commissioners by Secretary Seward.

Case of the "Kowshing."-The case of the "Kowshing" was as follows: The “Kowshing" was an English steamer engaged in the Chinese coasting trade under the management of Jardine, Mathieson & Company. She was chartered by the Chinese Government before the outbreak of hostilities with Japan, but at the time of the controversy and during the strained relations existing just before hostilities, to carry troops from Tientsen to Korea. In this capacity she was one of ten transports engaged in similar service, though for different parts of Korea. It has been stated, and generally believed, that the "Kowshing" was chartered at war risks, and with indemnity promised in case of loss by enemy. As a matter of fact a compensation was afterwards paid at the demand of the English Government by the Chinese Government to the sufferers on board who were English subjects.

The "Kowshing" had on board about 1200 Chinese soldiers with arms and ammunition; two Chinese generals, one European officer, Major Von Hanneken, a German officer who had been employed in a military capacity by the Chinese for many years, and twelve field-guns. The destination of the

"Kowshing" was Asan, a place not far from Chemulpo, and on the morning of July 25, 1894, about 9 a. m., when entering the Corean Archipelago, the "Kowshing" sighted several vessels a small Chinese dispatch vessel and three Japanese vessels, one of the latter the "Naniwa," firing two blank charges across the bow of the "Kowshing," stopped her and ordered her to anchor, which she did in eleven fathoms of water. The "Naniwa " then steamed away and communicated with her consorts. Captain Galworthy of the "Kowshing" signalled for permission to proceed, but was refused by signal. A boat then came from the "Naniwa," boarded the "Kowshing," and examined her papers. The master of the "Kowshing" was asked if he would follow the "Naniwa," to which he replied that he could not do otherwise, but would do so under protest.

The officer left the ship, and being still at anchor shortly afterward the "Kowshing" was ordered by the "Naniwa" to slip or weigh immediately. The Chinese generals, learning the meaning of the signals, objected to their being obeyed. Being told the uselessness of resisting they said they would rather die than obey Japanese orders, and as they had a larger force of men than the Japanese they would fight rather than surrender. Being told that if they did fight the foreign officers would leave the ship, they gave orders to their soldiers to kill the foreigners if they obeyed the Japanese or attempted to leave the ship. A signal was then made to the "Naniwa " to send a boat, and the officer of the boat, who remained at the foot of the ladder, was told.of the circumstances, and that the "Kowshing" was a British ship; had left Taku before a declaration of war, and that the Chinese insisted upon returning to Taku. The boat then returned and upon her arrival signal was made for the Europeans to leave the ship at Answer was made that the Europeans were not allowed to leave and asking for a boat to be sent. Reply was made

once.

by the "Naniwa" that a boat could not be sent. The "Naniwa" hoisted a red flag at the fore and discharged a torpedo, which missed the "Kowshing," and then a broadside followed. The ship was sunk either by this broadside or by a second torpedo or second broadside in about half an hour, and the firing continued upon the Chinese adrift in the water; the Chinese themselves on the "Kowshing" firing both at their own countrymen in the water and at the Europeans. The boats of the Japanese vessel were lowered and rescued what Europeans they could, but fired upon the Chinese in the water, at no time attempting to save them. The firing commenced about 1 p. m. and finished about 2.30 p.m. The lives lost were in number over 1,000, several of whom were Europeans belonging to the ship.

About two hours before the meeting of the "Kowshing" and the Japanese men-of-war an engagement had taken place between these vessels and two Chinese men-of-war, the "TsiYuen" and the "Kuang-Yi," one being crippled and run into shallow water, the other escaped and passed the "Kowshing" with a Japanese flag flying over a white flag. The small Chinese dispatch vessel, "Tsao-Kiang," from Chefoo for Chemulpo, was also captured by the "Akitsushima."

Several questions of international law are involved in this case. The first is as to a violation of international law on the part of the Japanese in commencing hostilities without declaration of war, as they did at 7 a. m on July 25. As to the firing of the first gun there is some dispute, but I think it reasonable from the circumstances (as they are given by various authorities) to consider that it was done by the Japanese.

Matters had been for some little time strained between the two countries. The occasion of the war was the situation in Korea, a Japanese force was already in Korea, at the capital, and there was a Chinese force in Asan, as well as at the