The Sun.
London, England, 1863-12-24 00:00:00

The Prize Courts of the United States.
Violation of the Neutral Rights.

(Translated from the Memorial Diplomatique of Dec. 20.)
The proceedings now pending before the prize
courts of the United States of America, and the sena
tences which are being pronounced by them, in op.
position to some of the best established doctrines of
international law, affect the interests of all the mari-
time nations of the world, and are of a character to
awaken the solicitude of the French Government.
Although the shipping of England alone is at pre-
sent exposed to the inadmissible pretensions of the
North Americans, the judgments which we are
about to examine, and the grounds upon which they
are based, constitute nothing less than a flagrant
violation of neutral rights—rights which for cen-
turies it has been the special glory of France to
maintain and defend.
The rights and the duties of belligerent and neu-
tral nations in time of war are founded on certain
essential princip!es of natural justice, modified by
experience and determined by precedent. These
rights and duties mainly consist in strict abstention
on the part of the neutrals from any participation in
acts of warfare, while on the part of the belligerents
they impose the obligation not to subject the neu-
trals to the direct consequences of a state of warfare.
If the neutral violate his duties he, by his act, be-
comes the ally of one belligerent and the enemy of
the other belligerent, and consequently may be
treated as such by the latter. If the belligerent vio-
late his duties, inasmuch as he thereby deprives the
neutral of the benefit of his neutrality, and subjects
him to the inconveniences of war, such belligerent
justly exposes himself to the risk of the injured
neutral openly taking part with the enemy.
As the code which regulates the duties of neutrals
and belligerents is not precisely a written code, but
a code which, while based on natural justice, is modi-
fied by treaties and judicial decisions—in a word, by
precedents—it is of immense importance for neutral
powers that no unjust precedent, which might now
or hereafter be quoted as an authority, be admitted
into the law of nations.
It is on these grounds that we propose to examine
the legal and moral weight of certain judgments re-
cently pronounced by the American courts, in cases
of the seizure of neutral vessels by the cruisers of
the United States.
According to the official documents now before
us. it appears that the New ork District Prize
Court, presided over byJudgeßetts, summarily, and
at the single sitting of the Ist of August last, con-
demned seven English merchant vessels and their
cargoes as prizes of war. We have thoroughly
and attentively examined all the documents and
evidence in the cases of two of these vessels,
namely, the Springbok and the Stephen Hart,
and we have satisfied ourselves that never did any
tribunal pronounce judgments more repugnant
to justice than are these two condemnations.

The Springbok, an English sailing vessel, was
chartered by an
English merchant for a voyage
from London to Nassau, New Providence, an English
colony. Loaded with merchandise which belonged
exclusively to Englishmen, and having all her papers
in perfect order, she left London on Dec. 9, 1862,
and proceeded direst for Nassau. Being a slow
sailer, she took two months to cross the Atlantic.
Oa Feb. 3, 1863, she was in lat. 25 35 N., and long.
73 40 W. of Greenwich, and consequently about 60
leagues distant from Nassau. There she was ever-
hauled and searched by the United States ship of
war Sonoma, who seized her es priza of war, and
carried her for adjudication to New York, on the
pretext that " she was loaded with contraband of
war for the use of the Southern rebels." In the
official act of seizure (proces verbal); it is expressly
stated that when the Sonoma fell in with the
Springbok, the latter vessel was steering straight for
Hirbour Island, the most direct course she could
follow to reach her destination, Nassau.
We can understand this act of violence on the
part of the commander of the Sonoma, bound pro-
bably to execute the peremptory orders of his Go-
vernment, but how shall we explain, and how ought
we to qualify, the judgment of the priza court of
New York which pronounced both vessel and cargo
prize of war? On what legal grounds did Judge
Betts base that double condemnation ? Oa the fol-
lowing proposition of law, amongst others, which
he propounded as an incontestable principle in inter-
national maritime law That a neutral vessel,
sailing between neutral ports, is not less subject to
capture and condemnation it she be laden with a
cargo not to be sold or disposed of in the neutral
port to which she is destined, but to be thence tran-
shipped to the enemy's country."
We venture to say that the preceding proposition,
which we give textually, is in flagrant contradic-
tion with those which have been laid down by the
most eminent jurists. It is very easy to prove this.
If there be any one principle in international
maritime law upon which all the authorities, from
Lord Stowell and Judge Story down to " His-
tericus " in England, and to M. de Hautefenille
iu France, are unanimous it is, that there is no
such thing as contraband trade between neutral
ports or with a neutral port. _

~ Goods belonging to a neutral (no matter of what
't,ie goods consist, and even were they munitions
of
'war), loaded on a neutral vessel, sailing for a
neutral
port, cannot be regarded as contraband
of War
, provided the goods are bona fide the pro-
perty'lt % neutral and the real destination of the
vessel be a
neutral port. The nationality and the
destination
legality of the the vessel alone determine the
and in the case in point
the prize cen:t"Yege ;
had no right whatever to take
into consider mioeither the nature of the cargo
or its ulterior atil
Illation. Any suspicion or even
positive evidence
these goods, after arrival
and disembarkation atEtt
the neutral port, were in-
tended to be aftervittra
forwardedf thence to the
enemy, was altogether
foreign
to the case and
These are the terms in wi j.
!li M. de Hautefenille
expresses himself on this
Nutt:
"To subject a neutral vessel to capture for the
act of carrying contraband of Wartlie.s
necessary,
concurrence
of two conditions is indispensable. It
first, that there be actually contrabandl
articles on
board, and in larger quantities than_
are required
for the use of the vessel and her crew ; d' ueondly
that the vessel be bound for a port of the hew •
rent power at war with that of the cruiser
Which
makes the search. This latter condition is ludic.
pensable to constitute a violation of the obligations
of neutrality, an infringement on the rights of the
belligerent.—(De Iliutefeuille, `Des Droits et de*
Devoirs des Nations Neutres.' Tome lit., p. 222
.)
The equity of this doctrine is not only self evi.
dent, but is made still more so by the absurdity of
that which Judge Betts opposes to it. If it were
admitted, in fact, that the ulterior destination
of certain articles of merchandise, on their Way
from one neutral port to another, justifies
their confiscation by one of the belligerents, the
Northern Americans would, for example, be en-
titled to overhaul and search French vessels on
their voyage between Bordeaux and Havre, as well
as Eoglish vessels bound from London to Liver-
pool, to ascertain whether they had
not
amongst
their cargoes any contraband articles, and, in case
they had to capture them. They would have,
r.,_moreover,u an equal right to confiicate all the
-zioropo,__
running
lines, on the steamers on the Transatlantic
New Yorkt pretext that these steamers carry to
o Boston
war destined
nite t to F -,avannah , contraband of
The case of riorly for the Confederates.
essentially the Stephen Hart does not differ
from that of th
we have an English s • • e Springbok. Here again
entirely EtighA ear
outing vessel laden with an
iish port, bound forg
the neutral
sailed from an Eng-
Gird,n,s, in the island of _ Spanish port of
t.,%olien Hart was seized
on the
Nevertheless, the
i o Cuban wat:,rs, by au Araeriea29th of Jan. 1862,
cc
.. tii to Now York, end "nderun sehif) of war, coni-
c:: TO 11G pl iZ 012 war. The gzoaci ~' along with her
surpasses in i . (:. of judgment in
this C..1h0 even blirp l'raVbgiii '
ICU that of the
Springbok. We give it textually
" To subject a cargo to the penalty of eoe
tion as contraband, it is an erroneous assumptionnna-
or
that its destination trot be directly ;
immediately
to the enemy's country car enemy's poet.
" It is quite sufficient if its ultimate destination
be established for the use of the army or navy of
trig cricmy. It such be the ulterior destination, the