1. The following propositions may be relied upon even where not specifically laid down in international conventions, viz., (1) Neutral Governments are obliged to do all in their power to ensure uninterrupted communications in wartime, as in peace, between foreign diplomatic missions (belligerent or otherwise) accredited in their countries and the home countries of the latter, (2) Neutral Governments are not obliged to establish substitute means of communication abroad just in order to facilitate diplomats who find they are unable to correspond freely in wartime owing to causes not due to the negligence of the neutral Government, (3) Where substitute means of communication are devised to meet the failure of the normal neutral means of communication the neutral Government ought to make them available to foreign diplomats as a matter of courtesy if not of international obligation, (4) Whether established before or after the outbreak of war, the local wire- less facilities in a neutral country, (State-owned as well as private-owned transmitters) can always be opened to belligerent diplomats impartially (Hague Convention No. V. Articles 8 and 9), (5) Notwithstanding the nature of their own municipal laws, neutral states are absolutely forbidden to permit the erection of private wireless transmitters by or on behalf of belligerent authorities (Articles 3 and 5 Hague Convention No. V.)
2. Other subsidiary propositions might be adduced from the Hague rules and the general principles of international law in this matter. As most of these would not however be relevant to the point under present consideration, they may be ignored. It is only worth observing that in a practical case of an abuse of the above mentioned rules by a belligerent Government, it would become the absolute duty of the neutral State concerned to get after the abuse so as to prevent its recurrence. Thus, no neutral State could accept as an excuse for the establishment of a belligerent wireless transmitter on its territory the pretension that normal communications between a belligerent diplomatic mission and a belligerent home Government had been disturbed or had ceased to function. A neutral State could not accept the view that a Legation premises constituted 'foreign' rather than 'neutral' territory for the purpose of erecting there a belligerently owned wireless transmitter which would somehow, be covered by 'diplomatic immunity'.
3. Fortunately, a radio is traceable by sounds and does not need to be seen in order to have its existence proved conclusively. If at any time it was suspected that a radio transmitter was being worked from a Dublin Legation, we would probably be able to track it down without actually having to enter upon the Legation premises at all. A 'raid' on such premises would clearly result in a lot of unpleasantness which it would be undesirable to provoke even if we were quite prepared to endeavour justifying our drastic action subsequently.

   In such a case, our best course might be to locate the set by technical means and then to request the owners to dismantle it (perhaps under our supervision) and to hand us over the components. We would have to be prepared for the reply (1) that as the transmitter was not being used to communicate with the belligerents' armed forces it did not strictly come within the wording of the Hague provisions and (2) that the transmitter was only a necessary substitute for communicating with a home Government, otherwise cut off and (3) that the owners of the set were not satisfied that impartiality was being exercised in this matter by the neutral Government.

   Notwithstanding the difficulties which such objections might represent, it is obvious that a definite challenge from the other belligerent might prove more embarrassing still and would sooner or later have to be met. I append the text of the relevant Hague provisions below.

[matter omitted]