New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-23
THE CASE OF THE CALCHAs.

The action Of Russian courts in the case of
the Calchas makes an interesting contribution
not to international law, but to current discus
sion and Interpretation thereof, and on the
whole, its tendency appears to be in a COM
mendable direction although there are some
details which at present do not convey their
own vindiCation. The fact that the Superior
Admiralty Court al St Petersburg has approved
the release of the vessel, despite the demand
Of a Russian admiral and the original decision
of Russian prize court for its confiscation, IS
an agreeable one, which will strengthen conf
dence in the impartial justice of Russian courts.
while the extent to which this decision accords
with the American doctrine concerning contra
band goods will be especially gratifying to this
country.
The release of the vessel is noteworthy be-
cause, in addition to a cargo of merchandise
intended for Japan, she is said to have car
red official Japanese dispatches. Hitherto the
carrying of belligerent dispatches has generally
been held to compromise a vessel to a hope
less degree and to warrant her confscation,
regardless Of any other circumstances. That
rule, obviously, was harsh and unjust in cases
where dispatches were carried without the
knowledge of the owner or master of the ship,
as they often were. Its relaxation in behalf
of the Calchas marks another step in the direc-
ton Of conserving and maintaining neutral
rights, and away from the brutal old theory that
neutrals have no rights which bellgerents are
bound to respect. Upon what ground the court
holds the two months detention Of the vessel
TO have been legal, and therefore not calling
for indemnity, is not yet made known, but we
may assume it to be simply that suspicion
against the vessel was sufficiently strong to
warrant detention until full investigation could
be made Innocent men are sometimes arrest
ed and imprisoned for a considerable period be
fore the prosecution fails to prove its case
against them and their innocence is iudicially
affirmed
In respect Of the cargo, the decision is mixed
The cargo consisted chiefly of goods which
might or might not be contraband according
to circumstances. OF such goods the court has
decided that the -four was not contraband, but
that the cotton and lumber were. We suppose
it held that the cotton was intended for the
manufacture Of guncotton for military uses,
and that the lumber also was for use in the
campaign. OF course, it was for the prosecu-
ton to prove that such was the case or should
have been, according to American and Anglo
Saxon principles Of Jurisprudence though Rus
sian courts may agree with those of France IN
regarding a suspect guilty until his inno-
cence is proved, throwing the Onus on the
defence instead of the prosecution. What is
most significant and gratifying however is the
-four TO have been non-contraband. thus 1t &C
cords with the American contention, that food
stuffs and other goods are to be considered as
conditional contraband"; that is, they are or
are not contraband according to circumstances
of destination and intended use; and it reverses
and practically rebukes the autocratic conten-
ton of the Russian government that if an ar
ticle can in any case be contraband it is in
every case to be regarded as contraband.
1t will be disappointing TO the American ship
pers to have their cotton and lumber confiscated
as contra band Nevertheless, in It's recognition
of the conditional contraband' principle the
decision Of the court is emphatic moral vic
tory for American theories Of law, and it will
go a long way toward securing for that prIn-
ciple that universal recognition which will make
it practically canon Of international law We
are not sure but that Russia has stood alone
in denying that principle. But her government
will scarcely continue to deny it. now that its
courts recognize and confirm 1t; and if her gov
eminent follows the precedent set by its courts
there should be no great difficulty in securing
general agreement upon that principle by some
post-beIlum universal congress at The Hague