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

The Prize Courts of the United States.
Violation of the Neutral Bights.
(Translated from the Memorial Diplornatique of Dee. 20.)
TLC proceedings now pending before the prize
courts of the United States of America, and the sen.
tencee 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 exernine 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 principles 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 l ork District Prize
Court, presided over byJudgeßetts, summarily, and
at the single sitting of the lat 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 direct 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 over-
hauled and searched by the United States ship of
war Sonoma, who seized her as priza of war, and
carried her for adjudication to New York, on the
pretext that " she was Joaded 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
Harbour 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-
bibly 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 oontradic-
tion with those which have been laid down by the
most eminent jurists. It is very easy to prove this.
If there he any one principle in international
maritime law upon which all the authorities, from
Lord Stowell and Judge Story down to " His-
toricus '' in England, and to M. de Hantefeuille
in' 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
these goods consist, and even were they munitions
of war), loaded on a neutral vessel, sailing for a
neutral port, einnot be regarded as contraband
'4 war, provided the goods are bona fide the pro-
party a neutral and the real destination of the
dee, be a neutral port. The nationality and the
"I'ttion of the vessel alone determine the
legality
°r
the voyage; and in the case in point
the priz
into coniecleurt had no right whatever to take
or its ult:tion either the nature of the cargo
positive
evic'ar destination. Any suspicion or even
and di„mbatitl'ee that these goods, after arrival
:ittion at the neutral port, were in-
tended to be
ait'orwards forwarded thence to the
'enemy, was
inadruiSSible by :ether foreign to the case and
pride
terms are the ter court.
iA which M. de liautefeuille
expresses himself on
point :
64 To subject a neutral
easel
to capture for the
contraband
act of carrying 1..1
war,‘e the cencurrence
of two conditions is intlispe, It is necessary,
first, that there be actually :4,h
r;,_
Ind articles on
board, and in larger quanati„
than are required
for the use of the vessel and her er,lv;
secondly
and,
that the vessel be bound for a poet 9
poet
'
bellige-
rent power at war with tl•.at of the stainer which
makes the search. This latter condition
is indiA-
penseble to constitute a violation of the obligations
on the right, S
of neutrality, an infringement the
belligerent.—(De Hiutefeuille, Des lima set des
Devoirs des Nations Nentres.' Tome ill., P. 222.)
The equity of this doctrine is not only self eei.
dent, but is made still more so by the absurdity et
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 English 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,
moreover,, an equal right to confiscate all the
-Ineopean steamers running on the Transatlantic
l.:,1.1e11, on the pretext that these steamers carry to
iNew York, to Boston, to Havannah, contraband of
-war destined
ulteriorly for the Confederates.
The Case of
.the Stephen Hart does not differ
essentially from that of
have
an
_IF,
.at the Springbok. Here again
tirvly temilii:lcitsti sailing vessel laden with an
lieh port, aeund go,f.::torr t which sailed from an Eng-
Cirdene ei in the island of neutral Spanish port of
Stenhen Hart was „dz.! Cubt. Itii_vertheless, the
in Cuban waters, by the! 29th of JAL!. 1862,
au mean ship of war, con-
veyed to NeNV York, et condemn
ed Mono- ',Pith her
cargo •as prize of war. ihtt
ra ,
g ofacd-ircent in
this cm even surpasses to eztrave,,arcti that of the
Snringbeh. give it textually
~
" To subject a cargo to the Penalty
of confisca-
tion as contraband, mucou assumption
that its destination must be directly 0:.
inantiediately
to the enemy's countrY or enemy's poet.
" It is quite sufficient if Its ultimate destination
• be established for the UEO of the army or navy of
be the
the enemy. such ulterior destination, the