The New York herald., 1877-09-21
Proceedings Of the Late Law
Congress at Antwerp.
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUOUS SEA VOYAGES.
United States Supreme Court De-
cisions Criticised.
EGYPTS MIXED TRIBUNALS.
Conclusions on the Subject Of
General Average.
ANTWERP. Sept. Z, 1S7


Tho Congress for the Reform and CodAcation OF the
Law of Nations has been sitting here for the last
week. Many of its discussions have been OF very
deem interest and affect future legislation. Among
,bo NOS, important papers read OF Sir Iravcrs
rwiss of which. as 1t refers to an American case,
give you the following pretty full summary
Sir Travers Twss selected his subject the doctrine
OF .sCoLtinuous Voyages" which found rs most re-
markable expression in the case OF the Springook
The paper may be summed up as protest against TINS
doctrine as inconsistent with both the declaration OF
common sense aud the interests of nations He begins
by pointing the object of European Powers in
making The Declaration OF Paris TO mitigate the
restrictions which the of between two
or more nations imposes the commerce OF neutras
He then traces the changes which have occurred in
the construction OF the laws OF maritime the
close OF last century.
EVIDENCE OF A sHIp's CHARACTER.
He points out that as early 1894 Sir William Scott
and Sir John Nchol. in letter to Mr. Jay the Amer
lean Minister in London, Land II down rule OF Eng
sh prize that the evidence with regard 10 the
character OF a ship should, in the first place, come
from ships papers board and tho testimony of
the master and the principal officers, and he shows
that the rule adopted and approved by Mr.. jus
lice Story; that il Continues to be the rule OF the
English Prize Court up to tho present day and was
vigorously observed during the Crimean He
also shows that the French Prize Regulations are
founded ON the same principal When the case OF
ship appears doubtful 1t is lett at present to
The discretion OF the Prize Court whether
or not further evidence should be received.
He suggests improvement upon this that in all
doubtful the production OF furthcr evidence by
the owner should be matter OF right and not or
grace The Declaration OF Paris intended to es-
tabsh uniformity of doctrine on the subject OF the
FhotIir 2utG Gir
Travers Twiss points out that this object cannot DO
fulfilled until there is settlement Of the rules upon
which the judgments OF prize founded, and
the requisite for this uniformity is agreement
the Interpretation to be given the TERMS ''conr
OF war" and effective blockades.' He complains
that the term has recently obtained in the prize
courts OF the United States enlarged inter-
probation unfavorable TO ncu-
trails And il, he asserts, the Interpretation
given by the Supreme Court Of the United States IN
the case OF the Bermuda should be adopted tho
Declaration OF Paris will be little better than dpo-
matte waste paper.
CONTINUOUS VOYAGES
The doctrine of continuous voyages is, in his
opinion, mere fiction Of law, and If pursued 10 its
logical consequences the commerce of neutral nations
will be hampcred in u way before submitted to.
In support OF this proposition he quotes the following
words Of MIR. Evarls, Dw the Secretary of Sta,o:-
'Tho rule thus established gives to the cruisers and
the prize wider and more trolled sweep
OF interference of commerce proscr bed
trail ports than they possess in respect OF commerce
between neutral and belligerent ports" Tracing the
origin OF this fiction Of continuous voyages. Sir Trav
Twss finds 1t in what is known 'Ihe rule OF tho
War of 1866" According to TINS rule a subject OF
neutral State cannot trade with the colonies OF
beligerent State, which denounced by the
the calling intermediate port, and the
doctrine of continuous voyages arose; but Sir
Iravers contends that the doctrine lald down by
Lord Stowell altogether different from that adopted
recent decisions by the American prizo court Lord
Stowe, according TO Sir Travers, never condemned
neutral unless its hostile character concusively
established and un ess u discovered on It's voyage
not to belong to the neutral but to the hostile port
The decision OF the American prize court, on the
trary, in the first place condemned the vessel its
way between neutral ports, and second assumed
its intention OF an Interior voyage 10 an cnemy's port.
Sir Travers goes on to say
InNEDIATE INTERESTS.
''Thc war now raging gives peculiar interest to
questions affecting the rights OF neutral commerce.,
and II any serious changes made by great Power
in tho law of coDtraOand and blockade 1t behooves
merchants TO make themselves acquainted with the
changes, and neutral governments to determine
whether they will acquescc in them Before
the American IL id been iy assumed tnat
II neutral port the bond Gde destination of a
trai ship, and the termination OF the voyage in
She was captured. neither the snip nor the cargo,
II tho neutral properly, could be
rightly condemned IN u bellgerenps court gooi
prize OF war; and that priza court would not INQUIRE
what the contingent destination OF the cargo
had been landed from the ship AT It's port
,iyl The pructco OF Great Britain hereto fore ON
his subject has well stated by Sir Edward Casey
late Cuef Justice OF Ceyon, IN his First Platform of
international Law. IRON which cite
lhe subject OF the prool OF hostile destination oil
contraband goods attended with considerable
uiculty, and questions on 1t seem to multiply in iu-
sir Travcrs than proceeded quote from the British
Admiraity's manual Of Prize Law" in which Is
'aIed that vessels destination should be considered
Neutral II both the port TO which She IS bound and
svery intermediate por at which she is 10 call IN the
course Of her voyage IS neutral
DESTINATION.
"a vessels destination should be considered hostile
II either the port TO which she Is bound any other
intermediate port at which she call the
OF her voyage De hostile, or II, in any part Of her
voyage she is TO 10 TO the onemys fleet at 1t ire
oueuIy happens that a vessels destination is ex-
pressed In Ler papers 10 be dependent upon contingent
cics. In such case the destination should
lie presumed hostile If any one OF the ports
which, under any oil tho contingencies, she may be
intended touch or 90 be hostile; but this pre-
sumption may DO rebuttcd by clear proof that her
master las definitely abandoned hostie destination
and Is pursuing neutral one. The destination OF the
vessel conclusive as 10 the destination OF the goods
on board" The latter ol these ruics--nameiy, that
tue destination OF the vcssc should DC conclusive
TO the destination oi the cargo-nas been Travers
remarks, violated ~ recent American de-
clsons. ana mott notOriousiy ia .he case OF
The Bermuda SIR Travers points out
that this doctrine OF continuous VOYAGES
has extended 10 the law OF blockade as well ns 10
that contraband lie points out tnat this ques-
toa OF blockade tho Continental Powers are less strict
than England and q Jorti0ri Than tho Unted States.
According 10 the Continental view vessel can only
be sezed when, having been warned OF on her ap.
proach to the line OF blockade, She persists IN at
tempting to break through II. Great Britain holds
that vessel may be soized at any point OF her vow
age II IL DC known that she IS actually bound for
port that is blOckadcI. But tue United States 20
iurlher ior they hold as In the case OF hc spring
box that the cargo may bo seized, although the
vessel be bound tor a neutral port, II there
be suspicion tnat the cargo will altcrward be trans.
fnitted 10 "a Diockadcd port Ibis decision he saws
has taken all the ursts of Europe by surprise and will
Impose neutral trade more burdepsome restrictions
.han they subjected to before 10 the dccrs.
ION the SpripgUok sir ravers bring this further
objection that whereas the rule hitherto has been TO
conhne the evidence The hrst that sup
Piled by the sh ITSELF the captOrs thls case were
niInxcd 10 bring forward exlrnneoMs eNldnnce Iln