524 INTERNATIONAL LAW 



fully its neutral regulations by directing the disarmament of the 

 ship. It is inconceivable that any foreign power could undertake 

 to investigate by force such a question and to determine for itself 

 the facts and thereupon precipitate a naval engagement in San 

 Francisco Harbor. It is not conceivable that such a practice could 

 be tolerated by the neutral maritime powers. The claim of the Jap- 

 anese consul of a right personally to inspect the Lena was not ad- 

 mitted by the collector of the port, who held, very justly, that such 

 inspection was the business of the United States authorities alone. 1 

 A belligerent cannot have the right to police all neutral harbors for 

 the purpose of enforcing regulations imposed by those powers. 

 Any such invasion of territorial jurisdiction upon a disputed ques- 

 tion of fact would be lamentable in its results, and any rule naturally 

 leading to such consequences should be resisted absolutely on its 

 first appearance. 



The Nation asks in this connection why all neutral ports should 

 not be closed except to ships in distress. It may be observed that 

 a neutral state does habitually close its landed territory to the forces 

 of a belligerent, and that a like rule applied habitually to neutral 

 ports would greatly limit naval warfare and tend to check the loss 

 and disturbance which it inflicts on neutral commerce. It would 

 strongly tend to localize war and avoid far-reaching complications. 

 The main objection to it, as has been said, is the overwhelming ad- 

 vantage it would give to great colonial powers like Great Britain, 

 having ports in all parts of the world. 



Peace being the normal order of things, as Sir John Macdonell 

 has lately said, the disposition of the past forty years has been 

 that the " interest of neutrals should prevail in conflict with those of 

 belligerents," 2 and the recrudescence of belligerent sentiment which 

 Sir John reports must be abated. Commerce, after all, is the great 

 interest and service of the seas, and war is a minor and temporary 

 affair. The greater interest ought not to yield to the less, except 

 under the most direct necessity. 



Sinking Neutral Vessels 



The sinking of a neutral ship by a Russian squadron on the ground 

 that she was carrying contraband of war and that it was impossible 

 on account of the weather, lack of coal, and the neighborhood of a 

 Japanese fleet, to bring her in for adjudication, has led to wide and 

 unfavorable criticism. 



The ship, the Knight Commander, was alleged to be loaded Avith 

 a cargo of railroad supplies intended for belligerent use by Japan. 



1 New York Nation, September 15, 1904. 



2 Nineteenth Century, July, 1904. 



