its own engines, in such case the collier might obtain coal in a neutral port under the restrictions applicable to ships of war.

It is well established that the bona fide merchant vessels of a belligerent may carry on trade with a neutral without involving the neutral State in obligation. The merchant vessel of the belligerent State would be liable to capture, but this would not be a responsibility with which the neutral State would be concerned.

The supplying of Government or other colliers known to be in the service of a belligerent State with coal except for their own steaming purposes would be analogous to the supply of war material to a belligerent vessel which is prohibited. The furnishing of coal in a neutral port to a belligerent collier except to enable the collier to keep the sea and under the restrictions prescribed for ships of war would be in the nature of the use of the port as a base. The neutral should prohibit such use. Referring to the British proclamation of 1904 allowing to the belligerent ships in British ports only

so much coal as may be sufficient to carry [her] to the nearest port of her own country or to some nearer named neutral destination; and no coal shall again be supplied to [her] in the same or any other port, roadstead or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of H. M., without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters.

Prof. Westlake says:

It is understood that the coal supplied under such a rule shall be used in proceeding to the destination which the commander of the ship named as being that of which the distance authorized the supply, and it may fairly be argued that in proceeding to that destination she shall make no captures, since her making any during a voyage which she had been expressly coaled for would constitute the neutral port her base of operations for the specific operation of war constituted by them; only if she is attacked during that voyage she may of course defend herself. But the legitimation by international practice, however faulty in principle, of the mere receipt of supplies without a specification of the use to which they are to be put, must imply the legitimation of any use to which they may be put. (Westlake, International Law, part 2, p. 211.)

The Government of belligerent State X requests the neutral State Z to forbid naval and merchant colliers of belligerent State Y to load coal in B, a port of neutral State Z, on the ground that this makes B a base for Y. The request relates to vessels of two classes, viz, naval and merchant colliers. Naval colliers, if belonging to or in the service of State Y, would be under the same rules as regards coaling as would apply to any ships of war of State Y. Merchant colliers not in the service of either belligerent would be free to engage in trade in coal subject to the usual risks of war.

Solution V (2).-The Government of neutral State Z should heed the request of belligerent State X as regards the naval colliers and other colliers belonging to or in the service of State Y, though there might be circumstances when it would be justifiable to allow a collier to take coal necessary for its own use, but merchant colliers may be allowed to take coal.

Status of colliers.-The status of auxiliary colliers was considered at the Naval War College in 1907 in Situation II, and it was the conclusion that the regular auxiliary colliers were to be treated as public vessels. A naval collier would therefore be treated as a vessel of the Navy.

Colliers belonging to the merchant marine and flying the merchant flag of a belligerent State are liable to capture by the opposing belligerent, but the neutral State is under no obligation to restrict the amount of coal which they may take on board.

Similarly colliers belonging to the merchant marine' of a neutral State may take coal freely as far as neutral regulations are concerned. Such vessels will, of course, be liable to penalty if engaged in the carriage of contraband or in unneutral service. These penalties do not place the neutral State under obligation.

Penalty for unneutral service. The penalty for unneutral service, like the penalty for the carriage of contraband, is one which a belligerent may inflict, and unneutral service is not an act which the neutral State is

bound to prevent. Article 7 of The Hague Convention Relative to the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Maritime War provides that

A neutral power is not bound to prevent the export or transit on behalf of either belligerent, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet.

Of unneutral service the general report of the International Naval Conference upon the Declaration of London says:

CHAPTER III.—Unneutral service.

In a general way it may be said that the merchant vessel which violates neutrality, whether by carrying contraband of war or by violating a blockade, affords aid to the enemy, and it is on this ground that the belligerent to whose injury she acts may make her submit to certain penalties. But there are cases where such unneutral service is particularly distinctive, and for which it has been thought necessary to make special provision. These have been divided into two classes, according to the gravity of the act charged against the neutral vessel.

In the cases included in the first class (art. 45) the vessel is condemned and receives the treatment of a vessel subject to condemnation for carrying contraband. This means that the vessel does not lose her neutral character and is entitled to the rights conceded to neutral vessels; for instance, she may not be destroyed by the captor except under the conditions laid down for neutral vessels (arts. 48 et seq.); the rule that the flag covers the goods applies to the goods which are on board.

In the more serious cases, which belong to the second class (art. 46), the vessel is likewise condemned; further, she is treated not only as a vessel liable to condemnation for carrying contraband, but as an enemy merchant vessel, which entails settled consequences. The rule regarding the destruction of neutral prizes does not apply to the vessel, and, as she has become an enemy vessel, it is no longer the second, but the third, rule of the declaration of Paris which is applicable. The goods which are on board will be presumed to be enemy goods; neutrals will have the right to reclaim their property on establishing their neutrality (art. 59). It would not, however, be necessary to go so far as to consider that the original neutral character of the vessel is completely lost, so that she should be treated as though she had always been an enemy vessel. The vessel may plead that the allegation made against her is not just; that the act with which she is charged has not the character of unneutral service. She

has, therefore, the right of appeal to the international court in virtue of the provisions which protect neutral property. (International Law Topics, Naval War College, 1909, p. 99.)

According to the provisions of article 46 of the Declaration of London

A neutral vessel is liable to be condemned and, in a general way, is liable to the same treatment which she would undergo if she were a merchant vessel of the enemy:

(1) If she takes part in the hostilities.

(2) If she is under the orders or under the control of an agent placed on board by the enemy government.

(3) If she is chartered entire by the enemy government.

It is here prescribed that the belligerent may treat the vessel engaged in unneutral service as he would treat an enemy merchant vessel. An enemy merchant vessel would be permitted to take on such articles in a neutral port under present laws as the master of the vessel might determine. The transaction is regarded as a business transaction and therefore is permitted, though it is understood that the neutral will give no protection to the parties engaging in the transaction and that the belligerent may inflict penalty if the property falls into his hands.

The principles set forth in the preceding discussions apply to Situation V (3), (4), (5).

Solution V (3).-The Government of neutral State Z is under no obligation to forbid the supply of cargo coal to neutral vessels.

Solution V (4).-If the collier of belligerent State Y has entered or is sojourning in the port of neutral State Z in contravention of the regulations of State Z, the collier may be interned.

The colliers flying the merchant flag of neutral State Z or neutral State M may be guilty of unneutral service, but this does not involve State Z in any obligation to intern the colliers.

Solution V (5). The colliers should be released if their relations to the belligerent have been simply those of neutral merchant colliers. Their liability for carriage would be deposited with the cargo.

If the colliers were chartered entire by or under the orders or control of the enemy government or otherwise engaged in unneutral service they would be liable to detention.

SOLUTION.

(1) As the apparent destination of the cargo is a neutral port of Z, the commander of the cruiser of Z should not withdraw his protection unless he is reasonably certain that his confidence has been betrayed.

(2) The Government of neutral State Z should heed the request of belligerent State X as regards the naval colliers and other colliers belonging to or in the service of State Y, though there might be circumstances when it would be justifiable to allow a collier to take coal necessary for its own use, but merchant colliers may be allowed to take coal.

(3) The Government of neutral State Z is under no obligation to forbid the supply of cargo coal to neutral vessels.

(4) If the collier of belligerent State Y has entered or is sojourning in the port of neutral State Z in contravention of the regulations of State Z, the collier may be interned.

The colliers flying the merchant flag of neutral State Z or neutral State M may be guilty of unneutral service, but this does not involve State Z in any obligation to intern the colliers.

(5) The colliers should be released if their relations to the belligerent have been simply those of neutral merchant colliers. Their liability for carriage would be deposited with the cargo.

If the colliers were chartered entire by or under the orders or control of the enemy Government or otherwise engaged in unneutral service they would be liable to detention.