NEUTRALS AND THE WAR.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 14, 17 January 1905, Page 4

NEUTRALS AND THE WAR.

The glaring infringement of China's rights just perpetrated by Russia mey serve to bring to a climax the agitation that has centred fnr some time past round •the rights and duties of neutrals toward belligerents. On no point in international law are the rules more vaguely defined; and both Japan and Russia have no doubt many strong arguments in their favour when they denounce the foreign Powers which, professing neutrality, have assiduously aided one or other party in the conflict. It must be allowed, however, that Russia has gained most by the generous interpretation that has lately been put upon the scope of neutral activity. Germany's "benevolent neutrality" has certainly sailed very close to the wind. The pledge given by the Kaiser that the western frontier of Russia would be safe even if denuded of troope, the encouragement publicly given by the Kaiser to regiments setting out for the war and to the Baltic fleet, the transfer of German steamers to Russia during the war to act as cruisers, the arrangements made by Russia for the supply of coal and munitions of war from German firms which are practically under Imperial authority—all these <\cts tm of so "friendly" a character that ft is very hard to reconcile them with any accepted definition of neutrality. France, too, though sincerely anxious to maintain a formally "correct" attitude, has been unable to resist the impulse to give as much countenance is possible to an allied Power, in whose solvency she is deeply interested. Today's cables show that the Japanese ire protesting against the serious breach of neutrality committed by Prance in allowing Admiral Roshdeetvenskh to remain in Madagascar waters for twelve days, and to use the island practically as a base far naval operations. It is impossible to deny these charges, and in such a struggle ac this, such breaches of neutrality are only too liable to aggravate friction, and ultimately to extend the conflict far beyond its original limits. The hetory of the voyage of the Beltic fleet so far as it has gone is practi?aDy one long record of breaches of neutrality. The squadron's torpedo boats out into Cherbourg and Brest and were allowed to coal there. At Vigo Spain allowed the Russian admiral to take in large quantities of coal —which Russia lias repeatedly declared to be contraband—and she let a large number of the Russian warships stay there for five days, ignoring the 24 hoars' limit fixed by international law. At Tangier and subsequently at Suda Bay a whole Russian division remained for several days coaling and taking in supplies; and apparently these tactics have been repeated at Dakar, at Kamarun, at Gaboon, at Swakopmund, and other French and German possessions on the African coast. At Port Said Admiral Fottcersham's destroyers were all allowed to coal from their own transports, and Mr. H. W.Wilson, the eminent naval authority of "Ironclads in Action" fame, wrote to the "Times" pointing out that in 1898 England had emphatically refused to allow Admiral Camara to tranship coal from his colliers to Spanish vessels in Port Said Harbour. Similarly in 1898 France had- refused to permit Admiral Cervera to coal the Spanish fleet at Martinique; and it is the opinion of Mr. WDeon, who certainly speaks with authority, that England has strained a po-'irt in favour of Russia, when she was in honour bound to defend the interests of her ally. Recurring to the Baltic fleet, it is not too much to nay that without illicit assistance it couM not possibly reach Eastern waters; and Baron Suyematsu, the Japanese envoy to Europe, has pointedly remarked that the Baltic fleet could not have Started without British coal. Unhappily we realise the full difficulty of the situation only when we understand that from the strictly legal standpoint England herself is one of the worst offenders against neutrality to the detriment of Japan. The laxity of the Imperial €k>verament on this important point has been chiefly shown in the direction of permitting a practically unrestricted expert of coal to the beffigerehts, but more especially to Russia. Between August and November Cardiff shipped for Russia about 50 cargoes of steam coal aggregating considerably over 200,000 tons; and immense quantities have been forwarded to fixed stations to await the arrival of the Baltic squadron. The "Times" says that the position taken up by the Cardiff merchants is that they win sell'the coal to anybody who pays far it without regard to the purpose for which it is intended. But it is the business of the Admiralty or the Imperial Government to make sure that contraband of war is not being forwarded to the enemies of ear ally; and it should be no more difficult to prevent British coal being exported for Russian use now than it would be If we were at war with her. This certainly is the opinion expressed by the majority of the London papers when commenting upon the protest made by Baron Suyematau and Viscount Hayashi last month on this very point. The "Dally Telegraph" «ay« there ie no doubt that In this matter our ally

has not reedred fair play. The "Globe" says that oar Government baa throughout the war shown on inexplicable leniency toward Russia, and the supply of British coal to the Baltic fleet Iβ hardly consistent with bate neutrality, The 'Tall Mall Gazette" opines that if we fail to do our obvious duty in this matter we shall' establish a very dangerous precedent and run the risk of very serious consequences. Indeed, there seems to be a consensus of opinion that this supply of the indispensable steam coal to Russia taken along with the sale of the torpedo-boat Caroline to Russia proves that England is not holding very strictly to the terms of her agreement with Japan. Mr H. W. Wilson asks, "will other Powers be ready to contract alliances with England in the future? Will this not tend to strengthen the legend on the Continent that England is a 'perfidious Power , and so prove disastrous to British policy?" In the same tone Bir A. Conan Doyle reminds us that "we have earned throughout history the reputation of being an unstable ally;" and adds that he can forgive the Japanese if after seeing us run a torpedo-boat to Russia, supply the Baltic fleet with Welsh coal, and let that fleet coal at Port Said, they believe we are following our very worst traditions. It is at least certain that England's action in these matters represents a very low estimate of those common interests in the Par East which the Anglo-Japan-ese Affiance was designed to protect; and it is easy to understand that Japan is not likely to put a more tolerant conetrnetion than this upon the remarkable and almost intolerable complacency with which our Government has lately treated Russia.