The capitulation of a fortress is justifiable on four grounds. The purpose for which it is maintained may cease to exist; its defences may be so weak as to lay it open to immediate capture by assault; its ammunition and food may be exhausted; and the condition of the garrison from wounds and sickness may turn the balance of humanity against that of military expediency. Each of these reasons has been advanced in support of the surrender of Port Arthur. Let us consider them in the order of their importance. Had the purpose for which the fortress was defended ceased to exist? Port Arthur served two objects. Primarily it was a naval base, and the hope of Russia was that the battleships and cruisers in its harbours would in due time raise the blockade and co-operate with the Baltic fleet. To this end, according to Admiral Wiren, the remnant of the Pacific squadron sought to preserve its existence by avoiding engagement with the overwhelming force of the enemy. The capture of 203 Metre Hill and the consequent destruction of the ships removed that hope and with it one purpose of the defence. There was, however, another object of almost equal importance. No one who was familiar with the conditions in Manchuria could doubt that the retention of Port Arthur seriously embarrassed the operations of Field-Marshal Oyama. It robbed the Japanese of the fruit of victory at Liao-yang, and reduced them to three months inactivity before Mukden. Every day that General Stoessel held out brought reinforcements to General Kuropatkin, and kept from him an army of one hundred thousand men experienced in the most desperate school of war. For that reason General Stoessel ought to have kept his flag flying over Port Arthur until the last shot had been spent.