Page images

issued a decree postponing the expulsion for a further 15 days.*

In spite of this, it appears that the original order was actually enforced in a considerable number of cases in spite of the protests of the Ambassadors.f The armistice, however, following upon the offer of mediation made by the Great Powers, postponed indefinitely the question of general expulsion.

There seems to be no doubt that the Ottoman Decree was an extreme measure not justified by modern practice. Theoretically, no doubt, a State can at any time expel aliens resident in its territory, and in case of outbreak of war even detain them and confiscate their property. Even so recently as 1803 Napoleon made prisoners of war all British subjects travelling in France; but such an exceptionally harsh instance is hardly to be quoted as a precedent. Prussian subjects in France, at the commencement of the Franco-German war, were permitted to remain, though it is true that later on the permission was in part rescinded owing to the exigencies of the war. I

There is at all events no modern precedent for an immediate general order such as that issued by the Porte, and it is in some respects a pity that the intervention of the armistice prevented a definite enforcement upon the Ottoman Government of the views of the Ambassadors.

It would appear that a more or less " effective" blockade of the Gulfs of Volo and Arta was maintained by the Greek fleets during the greater part of the war. A British steamer loaded with oil was prevented from entering the Port of Volo, ß and it is stated that an Austrian Lloyd steamer proceeding to the same place with 72 Turkish

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

* Times, 6th May.

t Times, 8th May. See the excellent notes in Halleck's “ International Law,” 3rd edition, Vol. I., p. 531 et seq., by Sir Sherston Baker.

§ Times, 14th May.


on board was captured by a Greek Torpedo Boat. *

The Greek fleet seems in one or two instances to have exceeded the limits of modern usage as regards the bombardment of unfortified seaport towns and villages, but in most cases it would appear that the places in question were at all events occupied by bodies of Turkish troops, or used as temporary store places for provisions and munitions of war.t

It is difficult at present to judge of the accuracy of the reports of pillage, incendiarism and ill-treatment of prisoners by Turkish troops in Epirus and Thessaly; but there certainly seems to have been some basis for the charges.

The usual Royal Proclamation in Council was published in the London Gazette on the 4th May, at which date curiously enough the war was for all practical purposes nearly over. The Proclamation sets forth fully the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and British subjects against any infringement of it, and concludes by a general direction to all persons to observe towards the belligerents the “duties of neutrality," and not to do any acts "in violation or contravention of the Law of Nations."

Another Order appearing in the same number of the Gazette, was directed by the Foreign Secretary to the Lords of the Admiralty, requiring the enforcement of the “ 24 hours rule” as regards belligerent ships in British territorial waters. In view of the fact that the Turkish vessels never left the Dardanelles and the Greek fleet was never more than a day's sail from Athens, the order was quite superfluous. The good work, however, done by the

Foreign Legion ” with the Greek army, made it evident that as regards most of the Constitutional European States


[ocr errors]

* Times, 20th May.
+ See Times, 24th and 26th April, as to Hagioi Saranti.

their respective Foreign Enlistment Laws were, except in flagrant cases of violation, permitted to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Cuban Expeditions and U.S. Neutrality. The question as to whether our own Foreign Enlistment Act applies to expeditions fitted out to assist insurgents was not argued in the recent case of R.v. Jameson, 65 L.J.M.C., 218, and appears to have been tacitly settled in the affirmative both in that case and in the earlier one of R. v. Sandoval, 16 Cox 206. The analogous United States Statute has, however, on this point recently been the subject of express judicial interpretation in the case of U.S. v. The Three Friends, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 495, in connection with a filibustering expedition to assist the Cuban Insurgents. The American Statute makes it an offence to fit out a vessel to be employed " in the service of any foreign prince or state,

or of any colony, district, or people to cruise or commit “ hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of "any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or

people with whom the U.S. are at peace.” The Supreme Court (Harlan, C.J., dissenting) held that the Cuban Insurgents, though not recognised as belligerents, are "a colony, district, or people” within the meaning of the Statute.

The sympathy of a certain section of American citizens with the Cuban rebels has given rise to a very important judgment of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wiborg v. The United States, 163 U.S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 632. The case arose out of the sailing, in November, 1895, from Philadelphia, of a Danish steamer, the Horsa, under the Danish flag and with a Danish captain. A body of men went on board a tug loaded with arms and boarded the Horsa, which had previously by arrangement gone 30 or 40 miles out to sea. Once on board, they distributed arms, were officered and drilled, and eventually disembarked to effect an armed landing on the Cuban coast. The Court held that the prisoners, being the captain and two mates of the Horsa, were guilty of providing or preparing the means for a military expedition or enterprise within the meaning of the U.S. Foreign Enlistment Act (Revised Statutes, sect. 5286) since providing or preparing the means of transportation for such an expedition is one of the forins of provision or preparation within the Statute.

The question of a somewhat similar expedition to Cuba came before the Federal Court in the still more recent case of United States v. O'Brien, 75 F. goo. The Court dealt very exhaustively with the whole subject of violation of neutrality by foreign enlistment or equipping expeditions. With reference to the Statute above-mentioned, the conclusions laid down were very interesting and may be summarized shortly as follows: (1) It being lawful for individuals to go abroad to enlist, they may go in any number, and in any way they see fit, by regular lines of steamers, by chartering a vessel, or in any other manner, either separately or associated, provided always, that they do not go as a military expedition, or set on foot, or begin within the jurisdiction a military expedition or enterprise to be carried on from the United States or provide or prepare the means therefor.

(2) If the owner of a vessel provides and furnishes her knowing that she is to be used for the transportation to a foreign country of an organised body of men, intending to act together in a concerted military way, and with arms, he is guilty of a violation of the Statute.

(3) It is no offence against the laws of the United States to transport to a foreign country arms, ammunition, and materials of war, either alone or together, in the same ship

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

with men who intend to enlist, provided they are not a part of or in aid of any military expedition or enterprise set on foot within the Jurisdiction. In such cases the persons transported and the shipper and transporter only run the risk of capture, and the seizure of such arms and munitions by the foreign power against which the arms are intended to be used.

(4) The fact that men intending to enlist and arms and munitions designed to be used against a foreign power are carried in the same ship and landed in such foreign country, and that the men there handle and carry the arms and munitions is not of itself absolutely conclusive of a military expedition, it being possible that the men intend to act merely as individuals and carriers of the arms. In such case the existence of a military expedition is one of fact for the jury.


The Cretan Blockade. As we anticipated in our last issue, Crete has been rigidly excluded from the sphere of belligerent operations in the recent war. After the suspension of hostilities between Greece and Turkey owing to the mediation of the Great Powers, all vessels which had been seized for

, attempted breach of blockade were released,* and the Blockade itself has since ceased to be strictly enforced.t

[ocr errors]

The Arbitration Treaty. The Treaty, signed early in the present year, after being “ amended ” by the Committee on Foreign Relations

as to be scarcely recognizable by its authors, was thrown out by the Senate on the 5th May last. Fortythree Senators voted for its ratification as “amended” and 26 against, the necessary two-thirds majority thus not being attained.

* Times, 18th May, 1897.

+ Times, 20th July, 1897.

« PreviousContinue »