Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-05-17
British View Of
War C0ntraband

The famous British shipping weekly,
"Fairplay". contains an article on cou.
traband of war which has a decided
bearing on the American cargoes now
going to japan on American vessels.
According to the opinion Of the writer,
the steamships passing through here
for Japan, many OF which have car
ried contraband for that country, would
be liable to be seized and even sunk
by the Russians. The article is as fol.
lows:
To the Editor OF Fairplay.-Dcar
Sir:-I should feel extremely obliged
to you for kindly giving me your most
valued opinion on the following points:
/. Can steamer of n neutral flag.
loaded with contraband OF war and
heading for Japan, be seized by the
Russians anywhere and sunk at once
II they cannot see their way to get her
TO Prize Court?
2. Can the same fate be incurred by
a steamer Of the neutral flag whose
manifest Is made out for a neutral
country. but whose cargo is really in.
tended for one of the belligerents II
she be captured by a hostile war yes.
sci?
3. II the same ship was taken and
brought to the nearest Prize Court,
would the Court confiscate the cargo
and give the ship free again, or would
the Court have right to also seize
the ship, provided, of course, that 1t
was proved that destination was a port
OF the hostile country?
4. Should the Prize Court not have
The right to seize the vessel In case 8:
would the captor still have the right
to sink the ship in case and 2 against
indemnity?
Apologizing In anticipation for the
trouble | am causing you, ] remain,
dear sir, yourth faithfully,
THEORDOR SCHIFF.
In answer to question II may be re.
marked that In time OF war all things
are not lawful, but all things are pos.
sible; and II Russia, being perfectly
satisfied that the goods on board are
contraband OF war-whether they were
strictly contraband or not-found 1t In.
convenient to get the ship into her
prize Jurisdiction she would sink the
ship in order to destroy the cargo. In
SO doing, however, she would not de-
stroy the responsibility for an illegal
act, and the owners of the neutral ship
would be justified In claiming juris
diction In the Prize Court, notwith
standing that the property had passed
out of existence. As to question 2, Il IL
a matter of intention; II It is quite
clear that the cargo has hostile des
rination, and that the neutral destina
ton is merely colorado, then the cap
tors are entitled to regard the property
as having hostile destination, not
withstanding the appearance OF a neu
tral destination. In reply to question
3, II may be stated that the trade In
contraband OF war Is q perfectly law
full and permissible one, On the otheI
hand, the seizure OF contraband Of wal
Is perfectly lawful and permissible tc
belligerents: It Is case OF conflicting
rights. n the belligerent seizes con
traband cargo he Is entitled to con
denim and confscate 1t; this Is The
punishment OF the trader In the goods
As regards the ship. II her conduct has
been In all other respects regular. SHIT
must be released, but she Is entitled
to no freight II there be any at risk OF
the condemned goods: this is the pun
lshment of the shipowner. II. however
the shipowner should be also the own
81 OF contraband goods the ship woulc
share the fate OF the goods. Question
Is practically answered in the above
As showing how underwriters here es
innate the risk referred to, II may b'
stated that they are now charging a.
much as 12s. Cd. per cent. on British
hulls taking coal to Japan via tn,
Cape.