518 INTERNATIONAL LAW 



completely disarmed. A Japanese officer with an armed force was 

 sent on board in the night - - the hour was 3 A.M.-- with a mes- 

 sage that the Japanese expected her to leave by dawn or to 

 surrender. The Russian commander refused and was overheard 

 directing that the ship be blown up. At the same time he seized 

 the Japanese officer and threw him overboard, falling with him, 

 and the Japanese interpreter was thrown overboard. The forward 

 magazine exploded, killing and injuring several. The Japanese 

 being armed, and the Russians disarmed, the former prevailed in the 

 melee and took possession of the vessel and removed her from the 

 harbor. The Japanese loss, due to the explosion, was one killed, 

 four mortally wounded, and nine others injured. Admiral Alexieff 

 informed the Czar that the vessel was disarmed the day before, 

 according to arrangements with the Chinese officials. The captain 

 and most of her officers and crew swam ashore and reported that 

 the Japanese fired on them as they fled. The Russian captain reports 

 that he had disarmed the ship, and having no arms to resist what he 

 calls a piratical attack in a neutral harbor, ordered the ship blown up. 



Admiral Alexieff says the Russians were conferring with the 

 Chinese officials as to a temporary stay to repair the ship's engines, 

 and had given up to the Chinese officials the breech-blocks of the 

 guns and rifles and had lowered the ensign and pennant. 1 



Russia earnestly protested at Pekin against this violation of a 

 Chinese port. Japan retained the vessel and justified the seizure on 

 several grounds, claiming that the Russian ship was not effectively 

 disarmed ; that her continuance in the harbor after the lapse of twenty- 

 four hours was itself a violation of the neutrality of China and so 

 absolved Japan; that the visit was to ascertain whether or not the 

 ship was in fact disarmed adequately and whether she had just claim 

 to remain for repairs, and to demand her departure otherwise, and 

 that the Russians began hostilities and thus justified the Japanese 

 in the capture; that the weakness of China in enforcing her neu- 

 trality and the nearness of the port to the seat of war all excused the 

 transaction. 



It is respectfully submitted that none of these can be accepted 

 as justifying the capture without suffering serious impairment of 

 the sanctity, the peace, and order of neutral harbors and encouraging 

 a painful retrogression in the public law applicable. 



As Wheaton says, Bynkershoek alone, of writers of authority, 

 allows the seizure of a vessel pursued into neutral waters, and even 

 he admits he has never seen this doctrine in any but the Dutch 

 writers.' Mr. John Bassett Moore shows that Bynkershoek's doc- 

 trine as to right of pursuit is almost unanimously condemned col- 



1 See London Times (weekly ed.), August 19, 1904, p. 532. 



2 Wheaton's International Law, sec. 429 (4th ed. Eng.). 



