ty of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on board
the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and
the impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the
Russian cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time,
obliged the commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her."

The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a
commander "in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a
captured vessel appears impossible on account of her bad
condition or entire worthlessness, the danger of her recapture
by the enemy, or the great distance or blockade of ports, or
else on account of danger threatening the ship which has made
the capture, or the success of her operations," to burn or sink
the prize.

The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in
cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her
being unseaworthy, or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be
recaptured by the enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without
depriving the ship-of-war of officers and men required for her
own safety.

The case of the _Knight Commander_ was the subject of comment,
on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In
the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred
as "a very serious breach of international law," "an outrage,"
against which it had been considered "a duty to lodge a strong
protest." In the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as
"entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised
nations." Similar language was used in Parliament on August 10,
when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to my letter of the 6th, in a
way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.

The _Knight Commander_ was condemned by the Prize Court at
Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed
on December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg,
which found it "impossible to agree that the destruction of a
neutral vessel is contrary to the principles of international
law." The Russian Government remained firm on the point, and in
1908 declined to submit the case to arbitration.

The Institut de Droit International in its _Code des Prises
maritimes_, voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed,
professing to state the law as it is, but as it should be), had
taken a view in accordance with that m