522 INTERNATIONAL LAW 



towed her to sea. In that case, also, there was resistance and shots 

 were exchanged and three men were injured on the attacking vessel. 1 

 She was pursued by a Brazilian man-of-war, but escaped by superior 

 speed. Although feeling against vessels of the class of the Florida 

 and against countries harboring them was most intense, yet the act 

 was repudiated wholly by the United States, the commander of the 

 Federal vessel was court-martialed, the consul who had advised him 

 dismissed, and the Supreme Court held that Brazil was justified by 

 the law of nations in demanding the return of the captured vessel and 

 proper redress otherwise, and that the captors acquired no rights. 2 



In like manner, in the case of the American steamer Chesapeake, 

 which was, it was claimed, piratically seized on a voyage between 

 New York and Portland in 1863 by certain alleged Confederate 

 partisans, who took passage on her in New York, she having been 

 pursued by a warship of the United States into Nova Scotian waters 

 and there seized, and two men on board and one of the leaders of 

 the partisans on a neighboring vessel taken into custody; the vessel 

 and the men were surrendered by the United States and an apology 

 made for violating British territory. 3 



Dispatches from Buenos Ayres of August 28, 1904, show that rela- 

 tions between Argentina and Uruguay have become strained through 

 an attack by Uruguay on an insurrectionary force directed against 

 her, but in Argentine waters. 



The cases holding the seizures of merchant vessels in neutral 

 waters void are too numerous to collate and are therefore omitted. 



The fact that the Russian ship had remained more than twenty- 

 four hours in the Chinese harbor shows a possible violation of the 

 twenty-four-hour limit adopted by China in her declaration of 

 neutrality, if the Russian ship was not, as claimed, detained for 

 necessary repairs and already disarmed. 



The limit of twenty-four hours was one which China could adopt 

 or not in her discretion and therefore could enforce or not. 4 No 

 other power had the right to enter her ports to enforce it. It is 

 usual, but not a legal obligation, for neutral nations to fix such a 

 limit for the stay of belligerent ships of war in their ports. Though 

 such a rule seems in process of formation as a requirement, yet dur- 

 ing the present operations, though many have, numerous nations 

 appear not to have announced such a limit. 



In the case of a Russian gunboat in the harbor of Shanghai which 

 failed to withdraw on the demand of China, Dr. Lawrence says that 

 Japan " might have given notice to China that she would no longer 



1 Marliiy's Hislort/ of the Navy, vol. u, p. 557. 



* The Florida, 101 U. S. 37; Hall's International Law (ed. 1904), p. 620. 



3 Hall's International Law (ed. 1904), p. 620; Wheaton's International Law 

 (4th ed. Enjc.), p. 580. 



* Dana's .Votes to Wheaton, sec. 429. 



