War and Neutrality in the Far East (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1904 edition. Excerpt: ...drawn in the opposite direction, and resolve the doubt in favour of the innocence of the disputed articles. In the case of serious disagreement, the neutral government protests first against the inclusion of the goods in question in the belligerent's list of contraband. Then, if they are not withdrawn from the list, it declares that it will not recognise the legality of the condemnation of such goods when owned or carried by its subjects. Finally, if, in spite of its representations, condemnation takes place, it claims damages from the belligerent government for unlawful seizure and confiscation. Probably a settlement of some sort is arrived at sooner or later. Failing anything of the kind, retaliatory measures can be adopted. Only in the very gravest and rarest cases would war be justifiable. We are now in a position to examine the differences between the two belligerents in their treatment of the present subject. According to the Prize Law of Japan, as set forth in Appendix VII. of Professor Takahashi's book, International Law during the Chino-Japanese War, contraband goods are divided into two classes. The principle of division is maintained in the notification published by the Japanese Government on February 10, 1904, though the goods placed in each class differ somewhat from the list published ten years ago, and the words which express the distinction between the two classes are also varied. The first class are contraband " when passing through or destined for the enemy's army, navy, or territory," the second only when " destined for the enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, being goods arriving at the enemy's territory, there is reason to believe they are intended for the use of the enemy's army or navy." That is to say, a...