Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-11-17
NOVEMBER ~, 1898. !

be no DOUBT respecting the Antwerp cnrg'cs Tor they
had entered Antwerp several months before hatdecision
IL this be not admitted let what would be the
effect of the Berlin Decree the Antwerp cargoes.-
The vessels which brought these cargOes had been
frccd to put into English ports this declared by
their captains Did this compulsory entry constitute
violation of the fictitious blockade established by the
Berlin Decree all the British Islands? And was
hscation the proper consequence? According TO the
laws OF nations and diplomatic conventions, this cannot
be pretended No capture is legal, except in of vio
laton OF real blockade, after due warning has been
given do the words of the decree mpugn this prin-
ciple Il pronounces various prohibitions, and applies
To each It's penal section the mertng conhsca-
ton carefully defined and entry into English port
IS not gwen as reason for that penalty false dc,
claration intended 10 conceal such entry considered
an aggavang circumstance, which occasioned consca-
ton.
When the Emperor willed that the fact of having
tered English port should be sufcicn, of
fscation, he issued the first Decree of Milan Nopem
bo Odd, 1907 Up to that time expulsion had been the
only penalty which could be inflicted; this declared
by the Minister of Marine in 1907. The Director Gc
neral ofthe Custom houses, his Report May 3d. 1870
formally expressed the opinion, and that too with
relation TO the Antwerp curgoes.
Thus The ships were sent away; no condemnation
sued; no prosecution was undertaken The cargoes
alone were srqnestered. And why Because tney
suspected of being English property; and if they
should have proved they would have become good
prize by the terms of the fourth article of the Decree.
The Director General of the Custom houses, who in
forms of this suspcion also informs u.s. that there
was no authority for it. An inquiry ordered; the
consgnecs of the their books
were examined; they forced To exhibit their
responsiveness yet the neutral character of the
by order of the Empcror but the Director General of
the Custom houses also informs that the order for the
sae was given with view to their preservation, mat
is to avoid the loss consequent the spelling of the
goods, with the reservation that the product of the sale
should be deposited in the Casss Reimbursement
On the 2lst Of April, 1910, appears by the letter
from the Director General of the Cdisse d7mortisse-
nen to the Director General of the custom houses the
product of the sales was transferred Treasury
The decision ordering this remained secret, and de-
nand or complaint the subject could be made. I'm
1913, Messrs. Felletaz and Co, Belgian commercially
lad
these cagoes, entered claim before the MId Commits
sion which had been instituted in virtue of the
of Paris. His claim admitted and the house rsceiv-
ed in stock $4,000 francs.
The Antwerp cargoes The fvorite theme of com
plant of the American minister The claims view
ed with desire to DO justice TO the iHqairy Of the
spolation admitted Letter Of Baron LoRis; the
French Minister Of Finance, to r Parish, Of My 81
1891 But was alleged to have been rendered irrero
cable by decision Of the Emperor What was this de.
cision; What was its purporti II most important
to ascertain this NJ de vlele. in his letter to the Mi
mister of Foreign Affairs, of February /, 1922 says
Until this decision be produced, we have of
replying to the pressing demands of the Minister of the
United States The decision not found, aud
seqnently, in NJ de Vileles opinion, the claim of the
United States is unanswered.
1t remains then established that the Antwerp cargoes
were mol subject TO confiscaon and that they not
conscated 1t remains established, that they
sold unusy for the benefit of the State their value
should be restored.
SEcoSD Class
49,, Vessets seqnestcred at 81 Sebastiansin 1910:
When the American vessels composing this class
well by the laws of France by those of their own
country The .yon-intercourSe .4ct did apply to
them.
By what tight then were they sequestercd They
sequestered in virtue of the Rambouille Decree
which the 23d of March, 1870 ordered the seizure of
all the vessels which had entered the ports Of Spain
the Goth of May, 1909
As defniti9e measure, the Rambouilet Decree can
not be defended law cannot be apped to occurren-
ces which took place before that law made nor is
such application rendered Just by its being ordered
the law To forbid neniras from entering port ans
In
though just measure To keep ports open-to declare
them openand then when neutral vessels have epter-
ed them the faith of public authorization, to make a
law for their seizure would be complete overthrow OF
the public faith; pure violence would be preferable
Bot it is urged, the Rambouilei Decree rctaia-
tory measure, and SUCH might be retrospective in its
operation
No doubt it would have been legal had the object been
French commerce an eventual compensation
for the injury which it may have sustained from the
Nom Intercourse 4c But il without this object the
moment that it was proved that injury had been
united, and consequently no compensation requi-
site.
And indeed the Rambouillet Decree did not order the
vessels to DC conscaed, but to be sequestered may
be from ordinance of Louis XVIII of February
Goth, ls22, in which he says Considering that the De-
cree of March Odd, 1910, thereby ordered sequesta.
ton, not conformation and when the American Mi.
mister demanded after reestabishment of nmicabe
atons What be the fate Of the goods scquestercd
the French Minister did hesitate reply that it
would be regulated according the principle of prsals
Now what Is the principle OF reprals2 It is that the
compensation should be equal to the damaees thai The
rcparaton should stop the limits of the injury Rea.
and justice require this and il expressly stated
in old Ordinance of the Marine, of 1891 Book 3
Ibc 10, concerning Letters If MaTqnt and RsprisaI
We therefore repeat, that American vessel was
seized in virtue Of the MN 7ct Ameri-
vessel could Lave been seized in virtue of the Ram
bOuillct Decree.
The Trianon Decree made change in this state OF
things To prove this, 1t is not necessary
mark that the letter Of the Ministers declaring the goods
which had been scqucsiered, subject only the princi
pies of eprsns Of later date than the Decree order
ing the product of the sales be transferred the pub
lie treasury The nature of the Decree itself sufficient
ly shows this IL is not merely of those orders for
conscaton which afterwards took the place Of the Or
ders Of the Prize Council, it administrative
ordering the payment Of into the treasury, but
giving II to the treasury. To infer from this
spOliation without cause, condemnation without de-
fence, wonld be in defiance OF all principle giving To-
the TrianOn Decree greater authority than the Emperor
himself wished
In fact the restitution demanded by the propriet,rs Of
the cargocs sequcscred Saint Sebastans agreed
10 under the Empire, and not contested until the
discussion Of last year this Treaty took place This
class of claims contained in the Reports of 1913 and
IS14. 1t declared to be admissible when in .
and lc3O the Restoration cndeavored under The general
reservation Of its irresponsIbny fix The amount Of
the American Claims; and the Commission Of 1881 did
not hesitate to allow IT, In the debates Of the last year
however objection raised against IT, drawn from
the treaty OF February I'D sly BY which Spaia coded
the Floridas TO the United States.
The 9th article Of this Treaty enunerates all the
claims against Spain, which the United States declared
that they renowned. Ia tis enumeration are comprs-
ed oil those OF prizes made by French cruisers
within the territory and jurisdiction Of Spain The 12th
article fixes the price of this remuneration five millions
Of dollars, which the United States 10 which the
Fordas ccded charged themselves with paying for