The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-01-07
THE BUNDEsRATH.

Again is, Great Britain involved in In
ternationaI complications for overhauling,
searching and Selling vessel belonging
to nation with whom she is at nom
inal peace, and again must she answer
for taking persons from aboard foreign
ship. though In the present instance 1t
would seem she is probably right. For
more than a century she has maintained
many views in reference to search ana
seizure which have been disputed by 9TH
er nations. and which at times have In
volved her in war, and have forced from
her reluctant treaties Her right to stop
and search American vessels, to see If
they were manned by British subjects,
and to impress all subjects so found Into
her service, led to the War Of 1872, but so
tenacious was she to her views on the
forced her to abandon them, and the
treaty Of peace, in that respect, secured
nothing. Not until 1912 did the United
States feel secure in believing that Eng
land had abandoned her claim to right of
search in time of peace. While the SELF
ure Of the Bundesrath does not involve
abandoned, nor does it involve search In
time Of peace. yet it does involve the gen
eral right Of search and seizure, including
the subject of contraband, which, in the
present instance, does not seem to be
entirely free from doubt
In considering the seizure Of the
Bundesrath one should not consider his
sympathies in the present war, no matter
for whom they may be- for the subject is
purely one Of international law, and there
seem to be many precedents bearing upon
it. The matter, then, resolves itself into
consideration Of three questions, namely:
o. Were there persons aboard the YES
sci who were going to aid the Beers as
soldiers, and, If so, was there right to
seize the vessel as we'll as the contraband
persons? (2) Was the vessels destina-
ton a neutral port? and 60 Was the
seizure made in neutral waters?
AS to the first question, a dispatch from
London announced that the seizure was
made because there were three German
officers and twenty men aboard who were
going to serve the Beers as soldiers. If
this is true, there can be no doubt that
the seizure of the men was proper. Sol
| declared contraband of war from time
| immemoriaI, but it has been disputed
| that a vessel can be seized for carrying
| contraband persons, unless its officers
| have knowledge that such persons are
| travelling for beIligerent purposes. Their
| mere presence is not sufficient evidence
| Of such knowledge to warrant the YES
| sells seizure. However, the English and
| American precedents throw much doubt
| upon all of these matters, as short ref
erence to them will disclose.
On Sept "a, 1907, Sir William Scott, sit
| ting as judge CT the English high court
| of admiralty decided that the fact that
| soldiers were travelling as mere passen-
gers to reach point where they could
serve the enemy was no reason why they
should not be seized, and that the vessel
also was subject to forfeiture, since its
master knew, or, by exercising diligence,
could have known, of the contraband
character of the persons being carried.
| That case arose during the war between
England and Holland. An American yes
sci. the Orozembo, was seized while car