For instance, when the Japanese seized the Russian destroyer Retchitelni at Chefoo in the Russo-Japanese war, there was a clear breach of International Law so far as the sanctity of a neutral port is concerned. China, however, if she had the will, was totally unable to enforce the law, and no other nation was sufficiently interested to concern itself in the matter. On the other hand, Russian vessels which took shelter at Kiao Chau and Saigon were not interfered with by Japan, and law was operative. But it would not have affected results had there been no law on the subject at all, for the simple reason that it was not to the interests of either Germany or France to see Russia suffer too severely at the hands of Japan or to have conflicts in their harbours, while it was not to Japan's interests to attempt the capture of the Tsarevitch at Kiao Chau as she seized the Retchitelni at Chefoo. Yet we know very well that had the Tsarevitch been at Chefoo no respect for International Law—other than the fear of international complications—would have prevented the Japanese from capturing the battleship. We know further that, however technically illegal, such an action would have been perfectly sound and rational.
Indeed, the right of sanctuary in a neutral harbour is an altogether illogical law. It is unfair to the victor that the vanquished should be able to evade the consequences of defeat, and easily suggests intolerable situations in the case of a neutral half inclined to enter the war. Had Germany, for instance, joined
