Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-26
NO FORMAL PROTEST FILED.
Applications Received for Information
Regarding Seized Merchantmen.

An index to the excited feeling In ship
ping circles is afforded by the applications
to the State Department by representatives
Of various mercantile interests for informa
ton respecting the seizures Of merchant
vessels and cargoes and the sinking OF other
ships reported in the press dispatches from
the east and from the Red sea. The local
agents Of the shipping corporations seem
to be without much news from their own
principals. One attorney came to ask about
the reported seizure of the steamship
Arabia. but the State Department has moth
ing before 1t except the press dispatches
relative to that subject
The attorneys for the American Trading
Company. which Is concerned In the de-
struction OF the cargo OF the knight Com
mander. have not yet submitted to the
State Department any formal demand for
indemnity 1t is their intention to do SO at
an early day, but so far they have not
been able to obtain all Of the data they
regard as necessary for the formulation OF
claim. This applies. not to the principle
of the destruction Of the cargo, but rather
to the amount of property involved. its
will probably base their claim upon the
contention that there Is no warrant in in
ternational law or naval practice for the
destruction Of ship and cargo Of the char
acter OF the knight Commander They
make the point that throughout the civil
war the Union cruisers. while frequently
making prizes OF neutral merchant ships
never sank any but confederate merchant
men.
Limitations on q Commander.
They contend that neutral nations have
a right to demand that any Of their ships
and goods seized by a belligerent shall be
brought before a prize court and that 1t
shall not be left to a naval commander,
whose ow nship perhaps is seeking to pur-
sue an enemy. to hastily pass Judgment on
the vast miscellaneous cargo Of a modern
merchant steamer under a neutral flag
These views will be impressed upon the
State Department as part of the brief to
be presented, but the department has given
no signs as yet of how far 1t will accept them
and use them. This Is because It is the
uniform rule of the State Department to re-
frain from making theoretical decisions and
1t so happens that UP to this moment no
protests had been formally lodged that will
suffice to set In motion the machinery Of
the department. As already indicated the
judicial officers have been stud ng the law
in the case and they have i'm orrnally dis
cussed the seizures with some of the at
torneys and parties In interest, but there
has been no formal declaration Of purpose
so far.
View Of the Local ATTORNEYS.
Messrs. Hopkins & Hopkins. Washington
attorneys for the agents Of the steamer
Vladivostok feet said today:
Howard Houlder Rowat & Co. are COM
mon carriers operating a regular line be-
tween New York and far eastern ports,
and as such may be responsible to the ship
pers. who would have recourse against
them. or else against those who DESTROYED
the cargo The American Trading Com
pany, which we also represent. has no In
terest In the case beyond being the con-
stgnee OF the ship itself at Yokohama.
This company owns little or none Of the
cargo, which was miscellaneous In fts char
acter. It's American owners probably con-
signed their freight In many cases to or
der. In that case they would retain title
70 II until nnai arrangements as to sale
were made. and hence were owners at the
time of the destruction Of the ship. They
would naturally have recourse against Rus
sia, since Russia DESTROYED their property.
flag does not alter the case. 1t is as II the
cargo had been taken out OF tho ship and
turned over to Russian use.
We are following the course taken in
the case of the Mashona, Maria and
Beatrice in the Boer war. which were seized
by the British or the African coast Al
though american goods we're in those In
whole value was recovered from the British
government. This was granted on the the
DRY that the goods were mot contraband
and were not subject to conhscation.
Destruction Unwarrauted.
I'VE further take the position that the de- j
struction Of the Knight Commander was
entirely unwarranted under International
law. because 1t was the duty Of the COM 1
mander OF the Russian squadron to send
her to the nearest prize port: he cannot |
constitute himself a prize court and can
not properly determine whether goods are
subject to forfeiture or not. Even IL the |
goods were subject to forfeiture, that Is
far from implying that the vessel was sub |
ject to destruction"