The sun., 1899-12-27
SEIZURE OF FLOUR SHIPS.
C4UsE or WiR, MArBE. WBEy THE
SHIP WAS DUTCH.

No Diplomatic Redress =. May he Paid.
Judge Addison Brown OF the United States
District Court. before whom all the admiralty
cases OF the district are tried. was inter-
viewed yesterday about the aeizure OF the
steamships Mashona. Beatrice and Maria by
the British near Delagoa Bay. The case as
stated to Judge Brown was that the Beatrice
and tho Mashona few the flag OF Great
Britain. and the Maria the Gag OF Holland.
Al three ships carried consignments OF -four
and other provisions belonging TO Americans
and consigned to firms In Delaeoa Day. which
is Portuguese. The officers OF the British
cruiser that overhauled the three ships de-
clared that the -four and other provisions were
destined to reach tho Transvaal ultimately
and we're therefore contraband OF war. Judge
Brown said:
Il can hardly believe that there was no other
reason for tho seizure than that -four is con-
traband OF war. -Four is not ordinarily held 10
be contraband Of war. and | do not think that
under ordinary circumstances contention
that II was contraband could be successfully
maintained. l am asked two Iuestions; First.
has England the right to seize vessels fiying
the British flag and the neutral cargo oil such
vessels consigned to a neutral porn Second.
has England the right to seize neutral Vessei
with a neutral cargo conrisned TO neutral
port on the assumption that the cargo 10 ulti-
| matcly destined for tho Transvaal. with which
Great Britain Is at WARP
As to the first question: The tight OF Great
Britain to seize ships under her own iiag. with
| their cargoes. Is derived from tyrannical use
OF war power In time OF war she may do as
| ahe pleases with her own II the emergency
| seems to warrant It. She may seize vessels
| and say to the owner We will pay you iair
price for the ship and for the cargo that has been
| entrusted to her. To take such action would
be to go beyond the ordinary limits: only the
| existence OF war could Justify It. England
would simply put herself In the position OF
| saying: We think your cargo 4. going To- the
Boers We cannot afford TO let the B"srs have
| n We therefore seize your ships and the
cargo and will se.tle the question OF compsnsa-
But the seizure Of the vessel and cargo
under the flag OF Holland would seem to he en-
rs aSss Ss eehaad saTS IN any syo coS Il
must be done IN the knowl,edge that hollandi
the owner oi the vessel and oi the ea,so' WI
| push the case to the last resort. Eng may
iecl that she can a3rd to or Gay many t,net tas
Would Holland. then" Judge Brown was
asked hevs IN M sran 1KSIe grounds TOT
Why" sail Judge Brown. with some hcsi-
ts',iiHn TAI n, Yes isnppo'' So But OF course sn'
IL was recalled that in 1901 an Euglish feet
sailed into the neutral port OF Cnrenhagen anh
"ny the e1snso sns hut Sspoeoa was about to
| seize that same feet to use II against Great
Britain, Judge Brown said that the present
| trary authority 10 meet an emergency Al the
| bottom o' II was the principle that in time o!
rnS HTS Mymdsrxsa. Mx"o Who blended sScc"ssiully
vessel. OF ihr Tinted states Navy IA the war
with spain. sid that Great Britain might nc
p.nSd IN intsr'sP,nS british ,ss lesSsis %tSs
that a. a lopa;ty has the rishI TO-. % en-; =.
the uttermost degree: and that neutral
merchants who intrus,ed their cargo"s TO
a dsIoyai crrand that 81 furnishing aid and
| com 'ort 70 the enemy ran the risk OF having
70 ~" th" British uGv"rnment tor me value q
| Mr. Myndcrsc said. 10y the fact that 'hcr" was
no bio 'kair and u, tar as the Tran nSEaal was wa.
1i,il in our 'GNil War. Mr. ,Mvndcrss said, rnted
States vessels repeatedly overhaule neutral
| v"s,o4 houn from Lurupe TO Nassau. IrrS-
| animation OF the cRrGoes and hy ciTcum>ian =
, ,b earEoSs Of Ses-
! were d-stin"d To be rcshlpped to the Conied-
"racy. ant under the dnctrins Of con,innoMs mn; i
II they had been shipped directly TO ports OF the
In the evasion OF the ntercepton Of vessels
bound for Nassau arose the case which more
j neatly established. Mr.. Myaderse SAID. pre-
,hn9 m" Of thu S"" Fs,arho he
TctrrhnN sailed from Falmouth tor Ma'nno-
raa. Mexico She carried cargo in rart army
| supGl'Cs. uniforms, artillery and cavalry equip
$Hd cloths; Ths rsS,srfs2tT srnran wa. s%iSs, T,,
il wa, there dccded that the vessel
| might 90 FREE: that tho military SUPPLIES
:vdgnty nssniSa 70. tho army St TIE Coz ,b
| other cargo. which was probably meant for the
| Contederncy but was not established TO be 80
Intended. must be released. The doctrine ot
continuous voyages" did not Apply in this case
b cause the supplies wer" to be TRANSPORTED
"P nS2 MSHSH fSa, in'H decsion @ snd ar Wynnersc
1T would seem that the -four IN the Dutch ship
hs mse n2t rTorS1yk SG aon ,s
| Transvanl cannot be blockaded.'
4 Ma lett .rrevost of CurtIs Mastt-rrevost
Commission and was on" OF the counsel. Tor
| Venezuela In the recent adjudication o! the
Venezuelan boundary dispute. dictated this
"Ihs facts .ns stated to me, are that three
vessels; Twp flying thS British nag and enc the
| phla for De!agoa bay with cargoes consigned To
Portuguese merchants there. These cargos
tined. Ultimately. for the Transvaal These
vessels. | am Informed. have been recently
1y STs ~ Srnop AZ s 70 ths h ssstv '%f
those s-izurra
- In, order 10 Justify the seizure o. the Dutch
that flour is contrnhand of war. and second
| that this partlcula aour was destined Tor the
| Transyaal II these two propositions can be
| maintained. there is reason to believe that
| international law would Justify the seizure.
| 81 very similar case arose during our own
| Civil War where tho pc'erhoif carried contra.
band goods from England 10 Matamoras, at a
time when the Confederate ports In tho South
were under blockade In that case II was held
| by the United States Supreme Court that
| although MRtamOras WAS a neutral port aud
| not within the blockadcd territory. yet tho
contrabnnd character OF the goods. taken in
| connection with their ultimate destination
| which was not MHtamoras but Confederate
territory TO the north Of the Rio Grnnde was
sufficient to Justify the seizure, This decision
was not approved in England at the time. hut
| the recent British actiCn in DelaRoa Bay would
seem to DO based upon IT, and the seizure o
| the Dutch vessel by British cruisers would
seem to be justified by II.
This conclusion. however, Ia based entirely
upon two assumptions: nrst, that -four IL con.
trahand Of war, and. second, that the ultimate
destination Of this particular flour was ths
TranSvaal. These two assumptions are funda.
| mental and nre intimately connected the one
| with the other; for the cOntraband character
of articles Is largely dependent upon their des
tinnton.
THE question as to what articles constitute
contrahand OF war is one upon which nations
and international law writer's differ, Certain