New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-06
DISTINCTIONS IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE.


Great Britain continues TO exercise the right
of search over neutral vessels bound for Della
goa Bay, and Observation-Disclosures and other,
but chiefly otber-of her conduct not only con-
tinues but increases. The right of search on
general principles, is indisputable. So is the
right of discussion. 1t is however, desirable
that they both should be exercised with courtesy
and with discriminating judgment. Especially
is it desirable that discussion should be based
upon accurate knowledge of the facts, and upon
recognition of different circumstances that exist
in different cases. The attempt TO bracket TO-
gether, for example, identical in character
the detention Of some cargoes of foodstuffs
shipped from this country and the stoppage of
some German vessels charged with conveying
contraband articles is wholly ill founded and
depiorable. The two cases are radically differ
ent, and are to be dealt with under entirely
different rules.
The American cargoes, so far as appears from
present information, were of foodstuffs, shipped
IN perfect good faith neutral goods before the
outbreak of the war. Such shipment cannot be
deemed a violation of the neutrality law. Never
theiess there is under international law some
conceivable justification of the British action.
The principle has been laid down that when
cargo consists of ordinarily neutral produce not
essentially contraband but only conditionally so
il the special circumstances of the case, and is
shipped in good faith as neutral merchandise
the right of seizure is still maintained. The cap
ter is however, TO exercise the right not of con-
fscation but Of pre-emption, appropriating the
goods as if for its own and indemnifying
the owner therefor by payment of the value of
the goods plus 10 per cent additional bonus. OF
course. any attempt 10 conceal the character or
destination of the cargo on the part of the ship
per forfets the right to indemnity and trans
forms pre-emption into confscation, because it
impugns good faith, which is an essential con-
dition of neutrality. Now, the good faith of the
American shippers is unchallenged. So is the
fact that their goods became after shipment, in
the special circumstances of the case, condition
ally contraband; provided, Of course, that the
goods were intended for one Of the belligerents
which docs not appear 10 be denied. 1t may be
assumed therefore the face of the case as 1T
stands to-day that the British had the right Of
pre-emption, and that the shippers Of the goods
pre-empted are entitled to compensation TO the
extent Of the value of the goods plus 10 per cent
Such conclusion of the incident may prove
satisfactory TO all concerned
The case of the German ships Bundesrath
General and others is quite different 1t is al
legged that they carried goods not conditionaly
but absolutely contra band, such as rifles, can
nor and ammunition, and that the case was ag
grayated by the fact of the goods being fraudu-
iently concealed and labelled pianos and
other neutral articles. If these facts be estab-
lished the British will claim justification OF their
seizure on the double ground, first, of the con-
traband character of the goods, and second of
the bad faith shown in the fraudulent repre-
sentafions OF course, the facts are yet TO be
established We are told that the manifest OF
the Bundesrath has been published and does not
show the presence Of any contraband goods.
That may be, and yet may not disproye the
British charge, if as is reported, contra band
goods were disguised and entered upon the
manifest neutral goods. The whole case
turns upon the facts that shall be finally proved.
n the mean time 1t is to be noted that there Is