PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 523 



respect the territorial waters of a state which seemed powerless to 

 defend its neutrality, or she might have claimed reparation for the 

 indulgence shown to her opponent." 1 She did neither, but after 

 long parley the Russian vessel was dismantled. The statement 

 of the rights of Japan seems extreme, and the constant assumption 

 that the twenty-four-hour limit is a provision of international law 

 which a belligerent may enforce against any neutral seems wholly 

 unwarranted. 



A practice of declaring such limit is widespread and growing, but 

 the rule on this subject, as stated in the edition of Wheaton published 

 within the year with notes by J. Beresford Atley, is as follows: " The 

 reception or exclusion of belligerent cruisers and their prizes in neu- 

 tral ports is a matter entirely at the discretion of the neutral govern- 

 ment." 2 He shows that the limit of twenty-four hours for the stay 

 of a belligerent ship of war in a neutral harbor is not half a century 

 old and depends on the action of the neutral power in declaring it, 

 and that it is not a settled obligation of international law. 



Lawrence thinks the twenty-four-hour regulation admirable, and 

 points out that neutrals are bound to treat both belligerents alike, 

 but says the law of nations allows the stay of belligerent vessels in 

 neutral ports, and that we have no right to complain where this 

 regulation Is not adopted. He says expressly that the common 

 " assumption that international law forbids belligerent vessels to 

 enjoy the shelter of neutral ports for more than twenty-four hours 

 at a time ... is an error, but one so general that those who give 

 expression to it have much excuse." 3 



A neutral state may at will close all its ports to belligerents, and 

 the New York Nation says: " Norway and Sweden, we believe, have 

 done so in the present war." 4 It is believed that Norway and Sweden 

 and Denmark have excluded warships of the two belligerents from 

 a large number of their principal fortified ports, but not from all. 

 Their proclamations of neutrality seem so to provide, and this has 

 been their policy for half a century. 5 They impose the twenty-four- 

 hour limit in such ports as are left open. 



The fact that Japan on September 11 made protest against the 

 Russian auxiliary cruiser Lena remaining in San Francisco Harbor 

 longer than twenty-four hours brings home the question to the 

 United States Government. The vessel claimed that she was 

 detained for necessary repairs and the United States took steps to 

 ascertain whether or not this was well founded, and enforced very 



1 War and Neutrality in the Far East, p. 138. 



2 Wheaton's International Law (4th Eng. ed.), p. 587, note. 



3 War and Neutrality in the Far East, p. 120. 



4 The Nation, August 4, 1904, p. 101. 



5 Revue Generale de Droit, Mai et Juin, 1904, pp. 14 and 15 of Documents. 



