The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1905. THE CASE OF THE ST. KILDA.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11637, 15 August 1905, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1905. THE CASE OF THE ST. KILDA.

The linking of neutral steamers carrying or suspected of carrying contraband has been a special feature of the present war between Japan and Russia. Such a proceeding, we need not say, is against all the principles of modern warfare as laid down and accepted by the States of Europe and America, or, in other words, by what has hitherto been regarded as the civilised world. It is an unfortunate fact for Russia that in their contest with an Asiatic Power the European should have transgressed tho law, and the Asiatic, who has hitherto been regarded as an irresponsible person without its pale, should have consistently and unfailingly observed it. We do not think that the Eussian Government is entirely to blame, and indeed so much is admitted. The fault rests with their fighting men. Russian commanders are anxious — and most naturally S o_to, do something. At the Head of the navy is, or was until lately, tho reactionary Grand Duke Alexis, high-placed, and a near relative of the Tsar. To this man the naval commander is directly responsible, and he is well aware that it will tako more than the sinking of a few foreign ships to reach tho Eussian Grand Ducal conscience. Accordingly, not being able to damage the Japanese themselves, for fear of the terrible Togo, they do what little they can to damage thoir trade, careless, or ignorant, of the- fact that their Government must inevitably pay for the cargo and hull of every vessel they sink.

As no little doubt exists as .to the 'position of neutral ships trading with a belligerent, it may bo interesting to point out that though the opposing belligerent has an absolute right of search, such right stops very far short of giving him . the power of summary destruction. The ancient rule gave a belligerent the right when he found contraband of war on board of a neutral ship trading with "his enemy to confiscate both cargo and ship, and if he was entitled to confiscate , a ship, ho was also, no doubt, entitlod to sink it if he could show conclusively that its cargo was contraband, and that it would have been impossible, or very difficult, to bring it to port to be adjudicated on by a properly constituted' Admiralty Court. The confiscation of a ship as well ns it 3 cargo was, when it was the practice, justified on sound principles.' If to supply the enemy with articles useful for military purposes is a noxious .act on the part of the owner of the cargo, argued Lord Stowell, the distinguished English Judge of the Napoleonic pefipd, the vehicle which is instrumental in effecting the noxious . purpose cannot be innocent. In our days, however, the opinion of the

Powers on the subject has changed, and the vessel itself is no longer confiscable. The modern view has been laid down by another well-known English Judge in a later case. He stated that the right of the capture at sea of munitions of war "which were being transported in a neutral vessel was given to a belligerent for his protection, and did not involve as a consequence that, the act of the neutral subject was either a personal offence against the belligerent captor or an act which gave him any ground of complaint against tho neutral trader personally or against the Government of which he was subject. The right of the belligerent is therefore limited entirely to the seizing of the contraband articles, and ho has no power to inflict any punishment on the carrier beyond that which he naturally suffers by being deprived of the earnings of his vessel while it is in the hands of its captors. This loss itself is often very considerable, since the vessel is. sent to the I captor's nearest port where an Admiralty Court can sit to try the question whether or not its cargo is ' contraband. But though, iv« the general case, the loss of freight is the only loss that falls upon the ship-owner, there are exceptional circumstances in which he loses his vessel. If, for instance, both ship and cargo arc his, or if the ship i 3 sailing under false papers, or its true destination is /concealed, it . is deemed to have identified itself with the cargo and becomes connscable. These rules refer only to vessels carrying contraband, and not to those which are attempting to break. through a properly-constituted blockade. Blockaderunning is looked upon in a totally different light, and any vessel engaged in it becomes at once the property of the captor. Tho St. Kilda, however," was not N blockade-running, but simply trading be*tween Hong Kong and Japanese ports. Count Lamsdorff, having gh r en Russia's pledge, after the sinking of the Kiiight Commander, that that incident would not be repeated, was placed in a difficult position by the action of the Dnieper. He deplored the violence of the Dnieper's methods, and promised that fresh instructions should be sent by the Admiralty. But who is to deliver them? The British Government asx before? If Russian* officers had any intelligence they would see that by such escapades, and the game of hide and seek with which they follow them up, they arc simply %ielping their enemies to humiliate their country before the eye 3of a much amazed -world.