States was embodied in a Bill in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, and passed by Congress. But this document purported to be retrospective and declared "That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist, and "that war has existed since the 21st April, 1898, including "the said day, between the United States and Spain." The declaration was subsequently duly notified to foreign governments. (Times, 26th and 27th April.) The view that a state of war existed, even prior to the date of the Declaration, is of course in accordance with modern theory and practice, and appears to have been rightly acted upon by the American Prize Court in their subsequent condemna tion of the Buenaventura. (Times, 12th May.)

(II.) Declarations of Neutrality by Neutral Powers: Most neutral States made formal announcements of neutrality shortly after the outbreak of war. (Times, 27th April.) Most of these agree in an avowal of an intention to maintain a strictly neutral attitude, a more or less general prohibition against their territory or waters being made the basis of belligerent operations, and a warning to their own subjects as to violating the rules relating to blockade and contraband. The German Government issued a semiofficial statement that it would not at present publish a formal Proclamation (27th April). The Austrian-Hungarian Government did not think it necessary to publish a Proclamation at all, the Hungarian Premier pointing out that only on three occasions during the last half century had such a formality been required. (Times, 13th May.)

The British Proclamation is embodied in a special issue of the London Gazette, 26th April. It is a lengthy document. The most noteworthy point is that it re-affirms as a substantial part of the duty of a neutral government, the observance of the three famous rules. as to "due diligence embodied in Article 6 of the Washington Treaty of 1871.

This is rather a blow at the opinion commonly held by text-book writers that the rules went too far and ought not to be taken as a precedent for the future. The Proclamation then proceeds to set out in detail the main provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, and concludes with a general warning addressed to British subjects, against doing anything "in violation or contravention of the Law of "Nations," and more especially by breaking blockade or carrying contraband. The most interesting document contained in the Gazette is a letter from the Home Secretary to the Lords of the Admiralty which enunciates the 24 hours' Rule" as regards belligerent ships in British ports, and then proceeds to declare that: "No ship of war of either belligerent must hereafter be permitted, while in any port or roadstead subject to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in supplies, except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination, and no coal shall again be supplied that ship in any port under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters."

The first practical application of the self-enforced doctrine of "due diligence" occurred in the refusal of the Government to allow the United States torpedo-boat Somers to take in a crew recruited in this country. As a consequence, the United States authorities deemed it preferable to leave the vessel laid up in Falmouth Harbour until the close of the war. (Times, 27th April.)

In July a further difficulty arose in connection with Admiral Camara's squadron which touched at Port Said en route for the East. The Egyptian Government, acting of course under British orders, prohibited the supply of any

coal to the fleet, except what was necessary to take the ships to the nearest home port. It also forbade the fleet to coal even from its own colliers within Egyptian territorial waters. (Times, 1st and 2nd July.) The squadron passed through the canal, but was immediately afterwards summoned back, and at the request of the authorities left Port Said within 24 hours. Three torpedo-boats were allowed to take in coal on a written guarantee by the Admiral that they would forthwith return to Spain. (Times, 6th and 7th July.)

Incidentally, an interesting question arises as to whether the supply of coal and provisions to belligerent ships in British ports, constitutes the criminal offence "equipping" a ship within the meaning of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, sects. 8, 10, and 30.

It seems pretty clear that this is so, except in so far as it is done with "the licence of Her Majesty." (See correspondence in the Times, 26th April.) It is difficult to see how the Home Secretary's letter above referred to can be deemed to amount to such a general licence as is required by the Act.

It further seems to be at least arguable that the mere dispatch of contraband for the use of one of the belligerents would infringe the provisions of the Act above-mentioned. But the Attorney-General in an answer given in the House of Commons on the 12th May seems to have a contrary view. (Times, 13th May.)

(III.) The Attitude of the Belligerents as regards the Declaration of Paris and other Questions: The United States formally intimated to neutral Governments their intention of following the principles laid down in the Declaration, in a communication to the effect that it was "the intention of the "Government of the United States, in the event of hostilities "between the Government and Spain, not to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the following recognised

66

"rules of International Law :-First, the neutral flag covers "enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war; 'second, neutral goods, with the exception of contraband "of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag; "and third, blockades, in order to be binding, must be "effective." (See London Gazette, 3rd May.)

The Spanish Royal Decree upon the subject was issued on the 23rd April. It is an elaborate document containing the following noteworthy points :-Art. I. declares that the state of war terminates all "agreements, compacts, and conventions" previously existing between Spain and the United States. Arts. III. and IV. are as follows:

"Art. III. Notwithstanding that Spain is not bound by the Declaration signed in Paris on 16th April, 1856, as she expressly stated her wish not to adhere to it, my Government, guided by the principles of International Law, intends to observe, and hereby orders that the following regulations for Maritime Law be observed:-(a) A neutral flag covers the enemy's goods, except contraband of war. (b) Neutral goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to confiscation under the enemy's flag. (c) A blockade to be binding must be effective: that is to say, maintained with a sufficient force to actually prevent access to the enemy's coast.

"Art. IV. The Spanish Government, while maintaining their right to issue letters of marque, which they expressly reserved in their Note of the 16th May, 1857, in reply to the request of France for the adhesion of Spain to the Declaration of Paris relative to Maritime Law, will organise for the present a service of Auxiliary Cruisers of the Navy,' composed of ships of the Spanish Mercantile Navy, which will co-operate with the latter for the purposes of cruising, and which will be subject to the statutes and jurisdiction of the Navy." (See London Gazette, 3rd May.)

The Spanish Government subsequently made an "explanatory statement" that the organisation of auxiliary cruisers

of the Navy would be based on the Prussian Decree of 24th July, 1870. (See the statement in Parliament, Times, 7th May.)

Art. VI. defined "contraband," but left the question a very open one by including in the definition "whatever may hereafter be determined to be contraband."

66

As regards privateering on the part of the United States, Art. VII., in effect, declares that it will be regarded as piracy. Captains, commanders, and officers of non"American vessels, or of vessels manned as to one-third by "other than American citizens, captured while committing "acts of war against Spain, will be treated as pirates, with "all the rigour of the law, although provided with a licence "issued by the Republic of the United States."

In point of fact, neither of the belligerents has actually indulged in privateering, though both have extensively utilized their Mercantile Marine as auxiliary ships of war.

A very striking feature of the Spanish decree is that it recognizes the principle of the immunity of neutral ships. under convoy, from visitation and search.

66

Finally, by Art. II. it is provided that: "A term of five days from the date of the publication of the present Royal Decree in the Madrid Gazette is allowed to all United States ships anchored in Spanish ports, during "which they are at liberty to depart."

66

The American Proclamation is much more concise. It was published in the Gazette of 10th May.

It provides that Spanish merchant vessels, in any ports of the United States, should be allowed till 21st May for loading cargoes and departing, except vessels having on board military or naval officers or contraband goods or despatches. Also, that Spanish vessels which, prior to 21st April, had sailed from any foreign port bound for a port in the United States, should be at liberty to complete their voyage and to unload and depart without molestation.