The evening times., 1899-12-27
THE BIGH9 OF Seizure
Great Britain Raises a Serious
Question in Dslagoa Bay.
An Issue i'm Prospect by the Deten-
tion of Foreign Vessels in Neutral
Dand OF War-Similnr Case Before
the United states supreme Court.

NEW YORK, Dec. 27.-The right Of
seizure exercised by the British Govern
ment in Delagoa Bay is just assuming The
proportions of serious inte. ma Al qnes-
tion. Great Britain has forcibly detained
six merchant ships, one Of which was fly
ing the flag OF Holland and one ttat of
Norway. The other four carried the Eng
hsh flag, but were tramp steamers loaded
with American -four.
This act in the interests of war has cen
done in neutral waters. for the Trans, AL
has no seaports. and LouTelco Marq4es,
whittier the vessels were bound. is P.rt1-
guese territory. In addition to tnese ia IS
The -four, with which the e-ss.s wee
loaded, was consigned to Portuguese uer-
chants in Lourenco Marques. and IL Ii
only by implication, as it would seem, tina:
the supplies were intended to feed the Boer
armies. England, theI efore. has stretched
the limit, il she has not in reality over
stepped the mark Of her rigats in the
premises.
The question is exciting the minds of
lawyers, and various opinions are held re-
garding the international phases of e
subject. Judge Addison Brown. of the Uni
ted States district court, had this to say
yesterday:
II am asked two questions:
First, has England the right to seize
vessels flying the British flag and the LeI-
tral cargo consigned to a neutral port on
the assumption that the cargo is ultimately
destined for the Transyaal, with which
Great Britain is at war?
LAS TO the first question: The light of
Great Britain TO seize ships under her own
flag with their cargoes is derived from
tyrannical use of war power. In tine of
war she may do as she pleases with her
own, il the emergency seems to warrant IL.
England would simply put herself in The
position of saying: We think your cargo
is going to the Beers; we cannot afford to
let the Beers have it. We therefore seize
your ships and the cargo, and will sett,e
the question of compensation in due cours e
of time.
But the seizure of the vessel and ca go
under the flag of Holland would seem TO
be entirely unwarranted. | hardly sse
how its legality could be defended IN y
court 1t must be done in the knowie ige
that Holland. the owner of the vessel and
of the cargo will accept a financial indem-
MITIGATION rather than push the case TO the
last resort England may feel that size ccn
afford 10 pay many times the actual valce
of the ship and cargo TO keep them from
reaching the Beers
II was recalled that in 1861 an English
feet sailed into the neutral port OF Copen-
there with the only excuse that Napoleon
was about to seize that same feet 10 use
il against Great Britain. Judge Brown
said that the present incident was an ap
plication of the same arbitrary authority
10 meet an emergency. At the bottom OF
il was the principle that in time of war
might was made right.
Wilhelmus Mynderse. of Butler. hoffman
& Mynderse who defended several of the
ships that were made prizes by vessels OF
the United States navy in the war with
Spain, said that Great Britain might be
justified in intercepting British vessels
with their cargoes in the instance of the
Mashona and the Beatrice on the genera.
ground that country has the right to en-
force the loyalty of her own subjects TO the
uttermost degree; and that neutral mer-
chants who entrusted their cargoes to ships
that were indirectly ii not technically on
disloyal errand tthat OF furnishing aid
and comfort to the enemy ran the risk Of
having to sue the British government for
the value of their goods. The situation was
complicated Mr. Mynderse said. by the fact
that there was no blockade, and as far as
the Transvaal was concerned. none could
exist inasmuch as that country had no
coast line.
I'm our civil war" Mr.. Mynderse said
United States vessels repeatedly over
TO Nassau. In the evasion of the iutercep-
ton of vessels bound for Nassau arose the
case which more nearly established pre-
cedent for the settlement of the present
question than any other-that of the Peter
hofT The Peterhoff sailed from Falmouth
for Matamoras. Mexico. She carried a
cargo in part army supplies and in part
foodstuffs and clothes. The Peterhoff was
seized. Her case went to the Supreme
Court, it was there decided that the vessel
might go free. that the military supplies
evidently intended for the army of the
COnfederacy. were subject to seizure but |
that the other cargo which was probably
meant for the Confederacy. but was not
established to be so intended. must be re- |
leased
Under that decision said Nj. Myn- |
derse lit would seem that the -four in the !
Dutch ship. the Maria. might not be prop |
erly held, even though the Transvaal |
were blockaded, and the Transvaal cannot
be blockaded."
S Mallett- Provost of Curtis. Mallett- |
Provost & Colt. who was member of the |
Venezuela Commission and was one of the |
counsel for Venezuela in the recent adju-
dication of the Venezuelan boundary dis
pute. said:
In order to justify the seizure of the
Dutch vessel, two points should be estab-
lished: First, that flour is contraband of
war. and, second, that this particular
-four was destined for the Transvaal If
these two propositions can be maintained |
there is no reason to believe that interna- |
tional law would Justify the seizure
Mr.. Provost then pointed out that Great
Britain had been very conservative In hold
ing foodstuffs as contraband and said that
if precedents were followed it was difficult |
10 see how flour consigned to Portuguese
merchants in Delagoa Bay could under
the circumstances, be regarded as contra
han |