Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-27
SEIZURE OF THE FLOUR
Serious complica tions With Great Britain
Not Apprehended
Vigorous Steps to Obtain Redress VIII
Be Taken II JustiRed-Mr. Alex.
ander p. Morse's Opinion.

The Secretary of State has SO far received
no report from United States Consul Hollis
at Pretoria concerning the alleged seizure
by British officials of vessels laden with
American 1our, consigned to South Africa.
1t is not at all likely that any serious
complications will arise between this gov
ernment and Great Britain over the incl
dent, and no doubt is entertained that
Great Britain will make ample reparation
for the seizure of the merchandise in case
1t is shown that she has violated interna-
ttonal rights. If it turns out that neutral
goods in neutral bottoms destined for a
neutral port have been seized by either
party to the war. as would be the case with
American flour consigned to the Portu-
guese port of Lorenzo Marquee, there is no
doubt that the State Department will take
vigorous steps for securing proper redress
1t is the belief of the officials, however
that no serious attempt will be made by
eny European power at this time to classify
flour as contraband of war.
Views of Alexander p. Morse.
Mr.. Alexander P. Morse, an authority on
International law, has made a statement
on the legal aspects Of the alleged seizures,
in which he says:
'"The British claim to seize American
breadstuffs afloat in Delago bay on the
ground that they were intended for trans
shipment to the territory of the Boers
raises the question to its legality ac-
cording to prize law and involves again the
consideration of guilty intent in relation to
continuity of voyage in the sense of prize
courts. The theory of continuity of voyage
Is not a new invention, 1t having originated
with Sir William Scott who applied 1t ad-
Verseiy to certain American interests in the
last century 1t was, indeed, a revival of
the famous rule of the war Of 1736 AL
though it was repudiated by continental
1uristS and by some American writer's 1t
was during the civil war in America adopt
ed and somewhat extended by American
prize courts al time when it bore severely
on certain interests and adventures Of En-
gllsh shippers and ship owners.
Applied to the carriage of contraband
and to the breach of blockade, it became
the settled practice Of American prize
courts during the four years conflict be-
tween the north and south. The extension
OF this doctrine, however, has not been ac-
cepted by continental publicistS, and in the
case OF the cargo of the Springbok par
ucularly there has been sharp dissent by
authoritative English and dAmerican writer's
In this case the Supreme Court held that
'wnere goods destined for belligerent port
are being conveyed between two neutral
ports by neutral ship, it, though liable TO
seizure in order TO ccnfiscate the goods, is
not liable to condemnation as prize and
that where the cargo was originally ship
ped with intent to violate the blockade to
pc transshipped at neutral port, the la
oilfty to condemnation, If captured during
any part Of that voyage, attached to the
cargo from the time of sailing
The law officers of the crown advised
the British efareign office that there was
nothing to justify the seizure of the Spring
box and her cargo, and that her majesty's
government would be justified in demanding
the immediate restitution of the ship and
cargo without submitting to adjudication by
an American prize court. But while this
was the law 81 given, the British commits
sioner' when the case came before the
mixed claims commission, under the treaty
of Washington. in May, 1877. united with
other commissioners in finding against the
claimant for the cargo. Down to this hear
ing 1t was unde stood that the British gov
ernment. acting under the advice of its law
officers, had disapproved Of the condemna-
ton.
"Mr Evarts argument before the mixed
commission, however. went to show that
the condemnation, while, perhaps, sustain
able under the British system, as defined
by Sir William Scott, was in anita gontsm
not merely to the doctrines set forth in Sir
William Scotts time by the United States,
but to those modern restrictions of block
ade by which alone the rights of neutral
commerce can be sustained against belig-
erent having the mastery of the seas. 1t
is not strange that the British commits
sfoner should have declined to set aside a
ruling SO consistent with the older British
precedents and SO favorable to belligerent
maritime aseendency. The ruling of a
majority of the Supreme Court and the
mixed claims commission says Dr. Fran
els Wharton, cannot be accepted without
discarding those rules to neutral rights
for which the United States made war in
1912, and which, except In the Springbok
and cognate cases. the executive depart
ment Of the United States government,
when stating the law, has since then con-
sistently vindcated'
The maritime prize commission, nomi-
mated by the Institute of International Law
at the session at Wiesbaden, condemned
the doctrine laid down and applied by a
majority Of the Supreme Court in the case
of the cargo Of the Springbok serious
inroad upon the rights Of neutral nations
and as inconsistent with the spirit of i'm
portant amendments of the rules of mari
time warfare, of which the United States
had been the jealous promoter.
The present indications that It Is a
doctrine which has come back to plague u.s.
and is another instance Of the danger Of de-
parture from sound principles under emer-
gent occasion"