We are as yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in those waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations imposed on a neutral in such a case by international law.
It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound not to permit the "asylum" which she may grant to ships of war to be so abused as to render her waters a "base of operations" for the belligerent to which those ships belong.

Beyond this, international law speaks at present with an uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due performance of a duty which, as expressed in general terms, is universally recognised.
The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this purpose limits the stay of a belligerent warship, under ordinary circumstances, to a period of twenty-four hours; and the same provision will be found in the neutrality proclamations issued last year by, e.g.the United States, Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

So by Japan and Russia in 1898.

This rule, convenient and reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule of international law; as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in replying to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons.

The proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do not commit their respective Governments to any period of time, and the material clauses of the French circular, to which most attention will be directed at the present time, merely provide as follows:-- "(1) En aucun cas, un belligerant ne peut faire usage d'un port Francais, ou appartenant a un Etat protege, dans un but de guerre, &c.