The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1898-04-28
LAW AS TO NEUTRALS.
FAMOUS AUTHORITIES SPEAK,
Arthur Cohen and Charles Russell, Dis
tinguished International Jurists,
Express Opinions on Righto of
Seizure and of Search.

Especial from N. ", Herald Correspondent
LONDON, April 23-(Copyright, 1898,
by James Gordon Bennett.)-In view OF
the paramount importance of the exact
Interpretation of international law as to
the position of neutrals and beligerents
| during naval warfare, have consulted
several of the highest authorities in
| England, aud among these men who have
had eminent practical experience as
counsel or commissioners at various ar
bitrations.
These are Arthur Cohen, queens coun-
sci, who has been many years iii parlia-
ment and who was, with the late Lord
| Selbourne, British counsel at the Ala
bama arbitration, and Charles Russell,
son of the lord chief justice, who was
member of parliament for Londonderry
and is a barrister, who has made inter
national law specially.
| Mr.. Cohen, who is held to be the grea-
test living authority in England on in
ternational law, said:
"The rules of international law OH this
subject, as far as they exist, are, in my
opinion, stated with mastery accuracy
and clearness in the first volume of Kents
Commentaries and in the notes of that
work by your distinguished Justice
| Holmes of Massachusetts,.
BARS RIGHT OF SEIZURE.
"In this work the right to seize the
property of belligerents on neutral YES
sells, i'll cases where the rule free ships
make free goods does not apply, has been
clearly laid down on pages 125 to 133. 1t
is no violation of international law for
neutral vessel to carry the goods of either
belligerent not being contraband. But in
cases where the above rule does not ap-
ply, the fact of carrying the enemy's
goods renders neutral vessel liable to
be detained and brought into a prize
port,
Neither the United States nor Spain
is bound by the declaration of Paris, and
unless Spain chooses or is induced or
forced by the rule that free ship shall
make free goods, she can search and de-
tain neutral vessels carrying the enemy's
goods.
"As regards contraband of war, all that
can be said on the rules governing this
subject may be found on pages 136 to 1853
of Kent's Commentaries and in a recent
statement of the attorney general III the
house of commons Coal and food may,
under certain circumstances, be conside-
red contraband, and will generally be so
considered if going to supply the fleets
or naval stores of belligerent power.
QUESTION FOR AMERICA SOLELY.
ut is a question of American constitu-
tional law, and not of international law,
whether the United States can renounce
the right of employing privateers, but it
seems that there is no ground whatever
for doubling that the United States is at
liberty to renounce that right. The
United States have done nothing to pre-
vent themselves adhering or refusing to
adhere to the declaration of Paris.
Whether the neutral powers can insist
on the United States and Spain conform
ing to the declaration of Paris will, in
my opinion, depend rather upon condi-
tons and policy and not on international
law"
Charles Russell said:
81 disclaim any right to speak with au-
thority on international law; still, may
be allowed to point out that both the
United States and Spain enjoyed full
benefit of the declaration of Paris during
the war of 1870 at the hands Of France
and Germany. This seems to me to be
additional reason for them now to adopt
its provisions, Spain has, moreover, in
former wars, adopted the declaration of
Paris Why, therefore, should she not
do so now%
SAFEGUARDS PRIVATE PROPERTY.
"The United States declared long ago,
in fact at the time of the declaration of
Paris, that they wished not merely to go
as far as that instrument, but to abolish
the right to capture private property at
sea, except contraband, altogether. That
proposal was never accepted by the pow
ers, which, think is much to be regret
ted. hope the present war may lead
the powers to consider the propriety OF
assimilating laws regarding the capture
of private property at sea to that on land.
Meanwhile, the United States agreeing
to observe the declaration of Paris, is
giving an admirable example. deeply
regret the war, and hope the outcome
will result in some tangible benefit to
mankind.
RISK FOR CARRIERS.
81 know there is no international law
and no English municipalIlaw to prevent
British merchant ships carrying goods,
or even contraband of war, for the sub
jects of either belligerent, but the car
riers carry the goods on their own risk
and cannot look for protection to their
own governments if the cargo is seized
The British government has no legal
power and is under no international oh.
| legation to prevent British subjects EN-.
gaging in such trade. The declaration
of Paris is applied, by the express terms
of that declaration, only to those powers
that adhere to it. AS matter Of law
therefore, the declaration of Paris does
not, in my opinion, prevent Spain and
America searching and seizing cargoes
belonging to the enemy on neutral YES
sels War ships might in accordance
with the ancient law of nations, compe
captured ships to carry the cargo to {
port of safety where the cargo can be
condemned and sold.
Owners of captured ships bearing the
enemy's cargo not contraband are enti
tied TO the freight which they woulC
have received. This freight would bt
charged on the proceeds of the sale, bu
as matter of fact they have no right tC
other compensation.
AS TO COAL, AND PROVISIONS.
SIT cannot be said that there is any de
cision of universally accepted authorit,
as to whether coal and food for belliger
ents are contraband of war. So far a
food is concerned the tendency is to re
lax the law as administered by Lore
Howell; who said that cheese consigned
to Brest when the French ships wert
provisioned was contraband. Great Brit
ain protested against the proposal b,
France to treat rice as contraband of wa
during the hostilities in southern Chint
in 1885
'In the case Of coal the British view
that coal is only contraband of war whei