The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1898-05-10
THE RIGHT OF SEA RICH.
N Concise Review OF tho EncCt Pro.
duccd by the War Upon British
mmc

"A SohclSe iNcNlcW Oh inc Eject FRO
duccd by the War Upon British
Commcrce.
The British Law Journal publishes
the following:
- In the event Of u war between the
United States and Spain the effect
upon English IN is u matter
which has excited some attention.
"Onc result Of the outbreak Of war
would be that either b9lligercnt wound
have the rig ut to search any merchant
vessel upon the high sea to ascertain
it's nationality II the nature of the
cargo on BOARD. II sistance to the
right OF search, according to tho ruto
which has been emphatically affirmed
in the British Prize Courts, renders
the ship liable to condemnation.
The United States and Spain are
not parties to the Declaration OF Paris.
Consequently they are not bound by
tue rule that the neutral flag covers
the cargo. Therefore u BRUSH ship
carrying cargo belonging to either
belligerent could be taken by a ship
OF thc other belligerent to u convenient
port for the purpose Of having the
cargo condemned. Under such cir
cumstances the usage is for the captor
to pay freight to the captured ship.
Goods whlch,Lre CO~ntrabund Of war,
destined for the use OF the enemy, are
liable to Contiscation, and freight il
not allowed in respect of them TO the
carrier. The carriage of contraband
goods docs not, however, according
to the prize law Of most countries,
render the ship liable to any other
penalty in the absence IF laud or
other ~aggravatipg circumstances
There are dicta in one or " English
cases that when he shipowne" is privy
TO the carriage OF Contraband goods
his snip Is liable to condemnation but
there Is no English or American case
In which such a principle ha: been
clearly established.
"A ship which violates an effective
blockade is, together with the cargo
Intended for the ~blockaded port, Liable
TO capture.
1T is, however, clearly established
n Il by English law trade in contra,
band goods or to a b~Iockadcd port j.
not lawful for u British subject when
This country is neutral. Therefore a
charter made by q British shipowner
Tor the purpose OF running a b.ockade
could not be repudiatcd by him. Ga
the other hand, performance OF Il con,
tract 10 carry goods to Il port, which
before the loading, becomes block.
AIDED, is excused when the charter con
thlnS an exception Of restraints o
frlnces. And even without this OK.
ccptlon the ~shipowner would, it i.
CnouSht, not to be bound to carry out
MS contract. on the ground ina the
adventure has been frustrated by cir.
cur stances not contemplated when the
contract was made.
inc question is q more difficult one
II IN the course OF the voyage the Dor,
OF destination should become blork.
aded. II the cargo owner rCuuires
delivery at Il port where the shin has
put IN, The Teutonia,' IL Law j. Rep.
Az. t, Is an authority for saying that
ne must pay freight. If the ship.
owner calls on him to take delivery
elsewhere than at tho port OF destina.
lion IL mas been held that he does no,
oy accepting the cargo become liable
TO pay any freight CCastcl v. Trcch.
man. G. and T., 276) Ii the cargo
owner absolutely refuses to take de.
livery elsewhere, it seems probable,
on the scanty authorities dealing with
the point That the shiDOwner must
keep the cargo until it is possible Ia
denver 1T, unless the charter contains
thc usual clause for delivery as near
thereto as she a safely get" and il
Is possible TO discharge the cargo at
some place near to the blOckaded port.
Contracts OF insurance made in
THIS country would not, from the legal
point Of view, be much affected bV a
war between two foreign States. In.
~surances on the property Of belligerents
would be valid, unless, as was the com.
mon practice in maritime wars, a
warranty OF neutrality were inserted
IN the policy; but, unless tho character
ol Inc property were disclosed, the
poilcy might be avoided on the ground
o. concea'ment. 1t follows from the
Tact that trade In %cOntraband goods or
10 a ~b'ockaded port would, by English
law, be lawful. hat an Insurance or
such goods on such a voyage would be
sood. But the nature OF the cargo or
Oh the voyage would aggravate the
FISK, and would therefore have to be
disclosed"