grams by the Danish cable and destroyed the Korean Government's telegraphic communication is wholly untrue. No such acts were done by the Imperial [Japanese] Government.

"Regarding the alleged sudden attack, on February 8 last, upon two Russian men-of-war in the port of Chemulpo, it is only necessary to say that a state of war then existed, and that, Korea having consented to the landing of Japanese troops at Chemulpo, that harbor had already ceased to be a neutral port, at least as between the belligerents.

"3. The Imperial Government have established a Prize Court, with full authority to pronounce finally on the question of the legality of seizures of merchant vessels. Accordingly, they deem it manifestly out of place to make any statement on their part regarding the Russian assertion that they unlawfully captured as prizes of war the Russian merchantmen which were in the ports of Korea." (Asakawa, pp. 358-59.)

AUSTRIA'S NOTIFICATION TO NEUTRALS OF WAR DECLARED AGAINST SERBIA (1914)

Sir M. de Bunsen to Sir Edward Grey

[Enclosure in a dispatch of July 28, 1914, from the British Ambassador at Vienna]

Copy of Note verbale, dated Vienna, July 28, 1914

[Translation]

In order to bring to an end the subversive intrigues originating from Belgrade and aimed at the territorial integrity of the Austro

1 Russia's counter-reply to the Japanese answer (mainly devoted to the alleged violation of Korean neutrality) was in the form of an inspired communication to the press (March 12) and contained the following:

"Japan pleads that the charge against her seizure of Russian merchantmen before the declaration of war cannot lie after the establishment of prize courts. Their seizure before the declaration of war being piracy is not defensible by the establishment of prize courts, which cannot exist before a declaration of war. The steamer Russia was seized in the waters of southern Korea even before M. Kurino had presented his note here." (Asakawa, pp. 361-62.)

For the decision in the case of the Russia see Hurst and Bray, pp. 39-42. At the time this counter-reply was issued perhaps the Russian Government had not received notice of the earlier seizures of the Ekaterinoslav and the Mukden as given in the chronology.

Hungarian Monarchy, the Imperial and Royal Government has delivered to the Royal Serbian Government a note in which a series of demands were formulated, for the acceptance of which a delay of forty-eight hours has been granted to the Royal Government. The Royal Serbian Government not having answered this note in a satisfactory manner, the Imperial and Royal Government are themselves compelled to see to the safeguarding of their rights and interests, and, with this object, to have recourse to force of arms.

Austria-Hungary, who has just addressed to Serbia a formal declaration, in conformity with Article 1 of the Convention of the 18th October, 1907, Relative to the Opening of Hostilities, considers herself henceforward in a state of war with Serbia.

In bringing the above to notice of His Britannic Majesty's Embassy, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs has the honor to declare that Austria-Hungary will act during the hostilities in conformity with the terms of the Conventions of The Hague of the 18th October, 1907, as also with those of the Declaration of London of the 28th February, 1909, provided an analogous procedure is adopted by Serbia.

The embassy is requested to be so good as to communicate the present notification as soon as possible to the British Government. (British White Paper, Miscellaneous No. 6, 1914, No. 50.)

§ 3. THE LIQUIDATION OF PEACE

(a) Days of grace

THE BUENA VENTURA

The Supreme Court of the United States, December 11, 1899

Mr. Justice Peckham, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Buena Ventura as follows:1

"The Buena Ventura was a Spanish merchant vessel in the peace

1 Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justices Gray and McKenna dissented.

ful prosecution of her voyage to Norfolk, Virginia, from Ship Island, in the State of Mississippi, when, on the morning of April 22, 1898, she was captured as lawful prize of war, of the existence of which, up to the moment of capture, all her officers were ignorant. She was not violating any blockade, carried neither contraband of war nor any officer in the military or naval service of the enemy, nor any dispatch of or to the Spanish Government, and attempted no resistance when captured.

"The facts regarding this vessel place her within that class which this Government has always desired to treat with great liberality. It is, as we think, historically accurate to say that this Government has always been, in its views, among the most advanced of the Governments of the world in favor of mitigating, as to all non-combatants, the hardships and horrors of war. To accomplish that object it has always advocated those rules which would in most cases do away with the right to capture the private property of an enemy on the high seas. (3 Wharton's International Law Digest, § 342.) The refusal of this Government to agree to the Declaration of Paris was founded in part upon the refusal of the other Governments to agree to the proposition exempting private property, not contraband, from capture upon the sea.

"It being plain that merchant vessels of the enemy carrying on innocent commercial enterprises at the time or just prior to the time when hostilities between the two countries broke out, would, in accordance with the later practice of civilized nations, be the subject of liberal treatment by the Executive, it is necessary when his proclamation has been issued, which lays down rules for treatment of merchant vessels, to put upon the words used therein the most liberal and extensive interpretation of which they are capable; and where there are two or more interpretations which possibly might be put upon the language, the one that will be most favorable to the belligerent party, in whose favor the proclamation is issued, ought to be adopted.

"This is the doctrine of the English courts, as exemplified in The Phonix (Spink's Prize Cases, 1, 5) and The Argo (id., p. 52). It is the doctrine which this court believes to be proper and correct.

"To ascertain the intention of the Executive we must look to the words which he uses. If the language is plain and clear, and

the meaning not open to discussion, there is an end of the matter. If, however, such is not the case, and interpretation or construction must be resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the precise meaning of the text, it is our duty with reference to this public instrument to make it as broad in its exemptions as is reasonably possible.

"If inferences must be drawn therefrom in order to render certain the limitations intended, those inferences should be, so far as is possible, in favor of the claimant in behalf of the owners of the vessel.

"The language to justify an exemption of the vessel must, it is true, be found in the proclamation; yet if such language fail to state with entire clearness the full extent and scope of such exemption, thereby making it necessary that some interpretation thereof should be given, it is proper to refer to the prior views of the Executive Department of the Government as evidence of its policy regarding the subject. This is not for the purpose of enlarging the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used in the proclamation, but for the purpose of thereby throwing some light upon the intention of the Executive in issuing the instrument and also to aid in the interpretation of the language employed therein, where the extent or scope of that language is not otherwise entirely plain and clear. A reference to the views that have heretofore been announced by the Executive Department is made in 3 Wharton, supra, and it will be found that they are in entire accord with the most liberal spirit for the treatment of non-combatant vessels of the enemy.

"We come now to the construction of the instrument. It will be seen that Congress on the 25th of April, 1898, declared war against Spain, and in the declaration it is stated that war had existed since the 21st of April preceding. The President on the 26th of April issued his proclamation regarding the principles to be followed in the prosecution of the war. It is dated the day it was issued. The fourth clause thereof may for convenience be here reproduced, as follows:

'4. Spanish merchant vessels in any ports or places within the United States shall be allowed until May 21st, 1898, inclusive, for loading their cargoes and departing from such

ports or places; and such Spanish merchant vessels, if met at sea by any United States ship, shall be permitted to continue their voyage, if, upon examination of their papers, it shall appear that their cargoes were taken on board before the expiration of the above term: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall apply to Spanish vessels having on board any officer in the military or naval service of the enemy; or any coal (except such as may be necessary for their voyage), or any other article prohibited or contraband of war, or any dispatch of or to the Spanish Government.'

"What is included by the words 'Spanish merchant vessels in any ports or places within the United States shall be allowed until May 21, 1898, inclusive, for loading their cargoes and departing from such ports or places'? At what time must these Spanish vessels be 'in any ports or places within the United States' in order to be exempt from capture? The time is not stated in the proclamation, and therefore the intention of the Executive as to the time must be inferred. It is a case for construction or interpretation of the language employed.

"That language is open to several possible constructions. It might be said that in describing Spanish merchant vessels in any ports, etc., it was meant to include only those which were in such ports on the day when the proclamation was issued, April 26. Or it might be held (in accordance with the decision of the District Court) to include those that were in such ports on the 21st of April, the day that war commenced, as Congress declared. Or it might be construed so as to include not alone those vessels that were in port on that day, but also those that had sailed therefrom on any day up to and including the 21st of May, the last day of exemption, and were, when captured, continuing their voyage, without regard to the particular date of their departure from port, whether immediately before or subsequently to the commencement of the war or the issuing of the proclamation.

"The District Judge, before whom several cases were tried together, held that the date of the commencement of the war (April 21) was the date intended by the Executive; that as the proclamation of the 22d of April gave thirty days to neutral vessels found in