The Sun.
London, England, 1871-01-18 00:00:00

THE SEIZURE OF TH-E
INTERNATIONAL.
JUDGMENT.

On Tuesday, in the Court of Admiralty, the Judge, Sir
R. J. Phillimore, gave judgment in the case of the ship
International, which had been seized in the Thames with
a cable on board for the French Government of National
Defence. The question was whether any infringement of
the Foreign Enlistment Act had taken place, or was
intended, and the arguments in the case were heard
last week. The vessel belongs to the India Rubber
and Gutta Percha Telegraph Construction Company
(Limited).
The Attorney-General (Sir Robert Collier, Q.C., M.P.),
the Solicitor-General (Sir J. D. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P.),
the Queen's Advocate (Sir Travers Twiss, Q. 0.), and Mr.
Archibald were counsel for the Crown ; Sir John Kars-
lake, Q.C., Mr. Thomas Hughes, Q.C., and Dr.
Pritchard appeared for the owners of the vessel.
Sir IL. J. Phillimore, in delivering judgment, said this
was an application under the 23rd section of the 33rd and
34th Victoria, chapter 90, made by the Indiarubber and
Gutta, Percha Telegraph Cable Company, the owners of the
ship International and her cargo, for a release of that vessel,
which had been detained by order of the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, under the provisions of the
statute he had named. That statute was passed during
the last session of Parliament, and this Court was now
called on for the first time to exercise its powers under it.
It was a Very important and very valuable act, because
it strengthened the hands of her Majesty's Government,
because it enables them to exercise a proper control
over vessels, such as the International, in times of
war between foreign and friendly nations. It was the
duty of the court, upon which devolved the application of
the statute, so to define it as to give full execution to its
provisions, at the same time not to strain them so as to
fetter the private commerce of Her Majesty's subjects.
The statute provided that if any person in Her Majesty's
dominions dispatched, or causes or allows to be dispatched
any vessel with the intent or knowledge or having
cause to believe that it will be engaged in the
military or naval service of any foreign State at war with
a friendly State, he should be liable to certain penalties, and
to the forfeiture of the ship and cargo, It was to this
part of the Act that this case had special reference, and it
was to vessels of this kind that the Act itself applied, and
having detained the vessel, two grounds of proceedure
were left open to the Crown. The law officers might
apply to that Court for the condemnation and forfeiture
of the vessel, or might leave it to the
owners to apply for its release. The Attorney-
General had taken the latter course—he had taken no
step himself, but left it to the owners to ask for the re-
lease, to which he had no objection to upon certain condi-
tions. Those conditions were that a bond should be
given to secure the vessel from engaging herself in mili-
tary service for France, and beyond this the Crown did
not intend to proceed against the company for any further
penalties. The owners, however, applied to the court for
an immediate and unconditional release of the
ship, and the condemnation of the Government in
damages and costs, caused by the detention, which the
court had power, if it saw fit, to award. He must now
draw attention to the facts as they appeared on the affi-
davits. The vessel itself per se was not adapted for the
purposes of war. Mr. Gray, the manager of the com-
pany, in his affidavit, said the company carried on the
business of manufacturing and laying submarine cables.
On the 7th July, 1870, the company purchased the ship
International, which was then partly built, and caused
it to be fitted up for the ordinary purposes of laying sub-
marine cables. At that time the terrible and devast-
ating war, which was covering France with blood, had not
broken out. The ship was delivered as completed in,
September, and was shortly afterwards let to tier
Majesty's Government, for the purpose of laying a sub-
marine cable between England and Jersey which
task was successfully performed. On the 28th
November, the company entered into a contract with the
Director-General of Postal and Telegraph Service of
France to lay down certain cables, and it would presently
be important to notice the principal points of that con-
tract. On the 21st of December, whilst lying in the
Thames with the cable on board, constructed according to
the terms of the contract, the International was seized by
the officers of customs, and on the 27th of December de-
tained on a warrant of the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs. Now, it was important to notice that the con-
tract was entered into with the French Government
represented by the Director-General of Telegraphs, and
was afterwards ratified by the Government of National
Defence. The cable was to be laid down in the
Channel, and would be a means of connecting
Dunkirk with Cherbourg and Bordeaux. The cable was
to be of two kinds—submarine and land, or shore end,
and it was to be.-constructed according to models which
were produced in court. The French Government were
to have the direction of the land ends of the cables.
and were to give full instructions to the contractors before
the International left the port of London. The contract
further stipulated that at every point of landing the com-
pany were to place 500 metres of land cable at the service
of the French Government, the whole sum to be paid
being nearly £90,000, in five instalments. A portion of
the cable was to be completed by the 31st January, 1871,
and there were penalties for non-fulfilment of the
contract. It would therefore seem that it was
one undivided contract to lay down certain cables, with
the exception of the land end which would be necessary
to make it of any practical use. This latter part the
French Government undertook to do, and it was an im-
portant ingredient in the contract, inasmuch as, prima
facie, it tended to shew that the undertaking did not con-
template a breach of the law by the vessel being engaged
in foreign service. It was evidence in favour of a purely
commercial undertaking—no main fides were imputed,
and it was simply alleged that there had been
a violation of the law in ignorance. It was also admitted
that the present International law in no way affected the
case. He had not to consider whether, under the old act,
the vessel might have been liable to seizure by a Prussian
cruiser, as carrying contraband of war, and was not en-
titled to the protection of the Government. In such cases
contraband of war might destroy the right to protection,
and the punishment was left to belligerents; but the
vessel was not under the municipal law of the country.
The question he had to decide was, however, whether the
owners of the International had so acted as to bring their
vessel under the accusation that she was engaged in the
military service of France. The counsel for the Crown
had contended that, considering all the circumstances
of the case, those who despatched the vessel had
reasonable cause to believe she would be employed in the
military service of France. First it was pointed out that
the contract was with the French Government ; secondly,
that the state of France at the date of the contract
was such as to render it impossible that
the Government could have contemplated laying
the: cable for purely commercial purposes; thirdly
that the places to be united by it, especially Dunkirk,
Cherbourg, rnd Bordeaux, made it a matter fraught with
suspicion, as the two armies of France would be con-
nected, the importance of which could not be over-esti-
mated ; and fourthly, it was pressed on the
attention of the court that the contract was
entered into very shortly before the removal of the
Government to Bordeaux, and that the cable must
afford the greatest facility to the Government for com-
municating with other parts of France. On behalf of the
owners it was argued that the cable was civil and postal,
and not military. Now, to furnish military tele-
graphs was clearly against the Act ; and 'it was
argued by the owners, and not denied by the
Crown, that the telegraph for a military purposes was
different in kind and character to the cable in question.
But to maintain that they were different was one proposi-
tion and to maintain that a postal telegraph, to be used
for military purposes, was not a military telegraph was
another and very different proposition, to which he was
not disposed to assent, neither did the Statute contem-
plate the exclusion of postal telegraphs under such
circumstances. The question was whether there
was evidence before them in the present case to prove
that the real object of this cable was and must have been
known to the company ; and he considered the positive
evidence was in their favour, especially as no malafides were
ascribed. The company contracted to furnish an ordinary
submarine telegraph, and this they did, and the affidavits
declared there was no intention on their part, directly or
indirectly, to adapt it to military purposes. No doubt the
communication would be of great value to France in a
military point of view, and would probably be used partly
for military purposes, but that, to him, did not appear to
be the main object, which lie considered was commercial.
If it was used for military purposes occasionally, that did
not divest it Of its priMary permanent, commercial 'cha-
racter, or subject the company to the heavy penalties of.
the statute. He had arrived at the conclusion that 'the-
applicafits had made out their claim to have the vessel
released. They had acted with great candour towards
the Government, and he did not feel inclined to clog the
release with the conditions asked for by the Attorney-
General, which, from whit transpired, would not
be very easy to agree upon. He was of
opinion, having regard to the peculiar circum-
stances of the case, which he need not here refer to,