New-York tribune., 1908-12-21
RULES FOR NAVAL WAR
PROPOSALS OF POWERS.
Outline of american, British and
Japanese Contentious.


Japan have satisfied themselves with submitting
their proposals in the briefest form. while others
notably Great Britain, support their views with
arguments and references to decisions whlch BTlt-
,sh courts have given in historical naval The
United States too. has gone into details on the
various subjects which she thinks should receive
consideration while. Germany has submitted
draft code OF laws.
The United states Great Britain and Japan
agreed on the majority OF points. The American
views in line with the code adopted by the
War College, and include the following sugges-
tions.
urerent bower p NAV be seized destroyed or used
for warlike purposes. but the proPrletors must 10
cases where the enemy has not observed a5it the
u1e5 there NAV ~ be recourse to reprisaIs, but al
ways in accordance with the dictates OF huInahy te
offence committed and should not be rePeaa1TG aIg1
after reparation has been made for the INJURY
xii ships the public service Of the enemy en- rc are
ly charitable or scientific work voyages Oh olS-
All private vessels belonging to the enemy, ex
cept bona hde coastal hshng boats are n Case
of military other necessity private SHIPS see oL Ice
OF tie government When ships. arms. munitionss
Of war and other objects oaPtu&Ted red 1,teS are states
before being conhded TO the care OF 2rfe % coGn orn
petent Impartial persons and such inventories and
valuations sent to the prize court before "hlch 'e
Neutral ships employed in naval or military ser,
enemy for naval or military service. subject
10 9hps OF the Tnted States Of America can
seek asylum during in a neutral port subject
and the relative number of beiligerent warshPs . ad
lief be used to escape from the enemy a tbo 10
storm; to procure provisions or TO rent me
to the nearest port of her own country
Such ships ngst eonf9Tm TO the ~ ta9 snd ID n
tervai to be observed before going to in pursuit
neutral ship carving an enemys dispatches is
seryTi seryice ~ The enemy Mali steamers under a
neutral flag carrying such dispatches. whether as as
reasons and without special convention remunera
Ion' arr oL So te e Vel erounded cause 10
suspect violation of the laws of war relative to
ity. In such case sacks and dispatches should be
forwarded without breaking seals.
In the section relating TO the exemption from
capture of hospital ships 1t is suggested that such
ships should give succor and assistance to the
wounded sick and shipwrecked Of the belligerents
without distinction Of nationality BeIhgerents
should have the right 20 control the movements
and visit hospital ships They could refuse their
help order them away in any direction wished
put commissioner aboard and even detain the
ships IL the gravity OF the rituation required H.
Merchant ships. yachts or neutral vessels carry
ing or picking up beligerent wounded, sick or
shipwrecked should be captured on account or
such acts. but should still be subject to capture
for any violations of neutrality which they might
have committed. Merchant ships under escort or
psrshiDs Of their own nationality should be
empt from the right OF search on proper assur-
ances being given by the commander OF the
convoy.
The American views also contain proposals as to
contraband and the methods Of blockading, which
are similar to those put forward by Great Britain
in a more extensive manner
The British case is based decisions OF British
prize courts and describes Contraband neutral
property on board d ship on the high or in
the territorial waters OF either belli6erent, which
by nature is capable of being used to assist in.
and is on the way assist in. naval or military
operations deciding whether the second OF
these conditions has been fulfilled it Is contended
that the court must distinguish between goods
primarily used in and goods used In either
peace war. The destination Of the cargo should
be presumed to be that of the ship. and If a ship
calls than port, unless proof TO the
contrary is produced, the port least favorable to
the neutral should be presumed TO be the destina-
ton OF the cargo, which would then be contraband
II It is proved that contraband cargo has an ul-
tercr hostile destination different from that OF the
ship destination of the ship should not protect
it. 1t is also held that ship carrying contraband
should be liable TO seizure at any moment through
out the whole course OF her voyage. long as she
is on the high in belligerent waters, and
her liability TO seizure should not be affected by
the fact she intended touch at some neutral
port before reaching her destination. When contra
band has been discharged. however. liability 10
seizure should be end.
The right search merchant ship when under
convoy of neutral warship, which Great Britain
differs from all other powers is pressed in the
British statement 1t IS held that a neutral ship
should not entitled to resist search by bellig
erent warship the ground that she is under con-
voy of a warship of her own nationality. FOrcb!e
resistance by her or by the neutral warship should
be ground for condemnation Of both ship and
The British case goes eXhaustiyely into the var-
Gus points which might arise in connection with the
seizure of ships for carrying Contraband at
tempting to run blockade. In regard 10 blockade,
the British. opposed 10 the Continental view,
hold that the blockadinR force may be disposed at
any distance from the ports coasts Of the enemy
that the naval commanders think ht, provided that
it is not so placed to obstruct to neutral
seaboard-
On the much debated question Of the right to
seize a neutral ship carrying cargo 10 a neutral
port when the cargo is intended ultimately for the
enemy, the British view says
Great Britain has never raised any objection to
the condemnation OF goods a British ship seized
while on the way to a i neutral port where It has
shipped at the neutral port to an enemy's terri
tory.
Great Britain strongly holds TO her contention.
raised during the Russo-Japanese War that It is
the duty OF a beligerent captor to bring in for
adjudication by prize court any merchant vessel
which he has seized. Where this is impossible.
the captured vessel. II she is enemy's ship, may
be destroyed after the removal Of the and
papers, II her nationality is neutral II there
is any doubt of her nationality she should be dis
missed, for her destruction cannot be justified as
between neutral owner and captor by any neces-
sity on the part of the belligerent."
On the question Of the liability of neutral ships
engaged by bengerent Great Britain holds the
same views does America.
The conversion of merchant vessels into warships
on the high IS a question TO be decided Great
Britain thinks. by reference to the rights OF neu-
trails. The statement adds
II is essential that there should be no possibn-
ty OF doubt TO the ships entitled exercise