Omaha daily bee., 1908-12-21
VIEWS ON NEW NAVAL CODE
Delegates Assemble in London to Ar
range for Prize Court.
TEN NATIONS SUBMIT BRIEFS
United States and Great Britain Differ
on Several Points = . Tribunal
Created by Last Hague
Conference.

Dec. D.-The views OF the ten
powers, the delegates from which are as
sembled here to decide upon a code of laws
for the international peace court provided
for at the last Hague congress, make a
decidedly bulky volume. Some of the pow-
ers, like Japan, have submitted their pro-
posals in brief form. while others, notably
Great Britain support their views with ar
guments and references to decisions which
naval courts have given in regard to naval
cases. The United States, too, has gone
into details on various subjects which 1t
thinks should receive consideration, while
Germany has submitted a clear draft code
Of laws. 4
Views of United states.
The United States, Great Britain and
Japan are agreed on the majority of points.
The American views include the following
suggestions:
A neutral ship found within the limits of
a oelIgrent power may be seized destroyed
proprfetors must be Identified.
In cases where the enemy has not OBJ
cannot be captured there may be recourse
to reprisals, but always In accordance with
the dictates of humanity.
IT reprisals should not Xceed in severity
the offense committed and should not
be repeated after reparation has been made
Tor the injury complained Of.
81 SuDSCCN ~ capture
All ships in the public service of the
enemy are subject to capture, except those
employed in purely charitable or scientific
work, voyages of discovery and as hospital
ships.
All private vessels belonging to the enemy
except bona fide coasting boats, are sub
Ject to capture unless exempt under treaty.
In case of military or other necessary pri-
vate ships of the enemy can be destroyed
or retained for service of the government.
Neutral ships employed in naval or mill
| tnTV RaTUlHa nf tho anaT1W r nl1nn6 1nhAF
control Of the enemy for naval or military
service, are subject to capture and destruc-
ton.
War ships of the United, States can seek
asylum during war In a neutral port SUBJ
Ject to the limitations prescribed by the
port authorities. Such ships must conform
to the regulations Of he port authorities
regulating stays
A neutral ship carrying an enemy's dis
patches is subject to seizure when act
Ing as courier.
Mail steamers under a neutral flag,
carrying said dispatches, whether as part
of general mail or separately for con-
venient reasons and without special re-
Enumeration, are not subject to seizure
and should not be detained unless there
violation of the laws of war.
In the section relating to the exemption
from apture of hospital ships 1t is sug-
gested that such ships should give succor
and assistance to the wounded, sick and
shipwrecked of the belligerents without
distinction of nationality. Belligerents
should have the right to control the move
hents and visit hospital ships. ~hey
could refuse their help, order them away
In any direction wished; but a commits
sioner may board and ever detain the
ships II the gravity of the situation re-
Quires IT. - "f t'''
Merchant ships, yachts or neutral YES
sells, carrying or picking up ~belligerent
wounded. sick or shipWrecked should not
be captured on account Of such acts, but
should still be subject to capture for vio-
lations of the neutrality. Merchant ships
under escort of warships of their own
right of search o~nsproper assurances be-
ing given by the commander Of the con-
The American views also contain pro-
posals to contraband and the methods of
blockading which are similar to those
put forward by Great Britain in a more
extensive manner. 1
Views OF British.
The British case Follows on decisions
of British prize courts and discusses con-
traband as neutral property on board
ship on the high seas, or in the territorial
waters OF either belligerent, which by ma
ture is capable Of being used to assist
in or Is on the way to assist In naval or
military operations. In deciding whether
the second of the conditions has been
fulfilled 1t is contended that the court
must distinguish between goods primarily
used in war and goods used in either
peace or war.
The destination Of the cargo should be
presumed to be that of the ship. and II a
ship calls at more than one port. unless
proof to the contrary is produced. the port
least favorable to the neutral should be
presumed TO be the destination of the cargo.
which would then be contraband. If 1t is
proved that contraband cargo has an ul-
terror hostile destination different from
that Of the ship. the destination of the ship
should not protect II. 1t lie also held that
a ship carrying contraband should be liable
to seizure at any moment throughout the
whole course OF it's voyage, so long as it
is on the high seas or In belligerent waters,
and its liability to seizure should not be
affected by the fact that It intended to
Its destination. When contraband has been
discharged, however, liability to seizure
should be at an end.
Right of Search.
The right to search a merchant ship when
under convoy OF a neutral warship is pre-
ferred. II is held that a neutral ship should
not be entitled TO resist search by a bellig-
erent warship on the GROUND that 1t is un-
der convoy of a warship of its own nation
atty. Forcible resistance by It or by the
neutral warship should be ground for con-
demnation of both ships and cargo.
In regard to blockade, the British. as
opposed to the continental view, hold that
the blockading force may be disposed at
any distance from the ports OF coasts Of
the enemy that the naval commanders think
fit, provided It is not so placed as to OBJ
struct access TO a neutral ~seaboard.
On the question OF the RICH to seize a
neutral ship carrying cargo TO a neutral
port, which cargo is intended ultimately for
the enemy, the British view says:
Great Britain never has raised any OBJ
lection to the condemnation of goods on a
British ship seized while on the way TO a
neutral port, where 1t has been proved that
the goods were to be trans-shipped at the
neutral port to an enemy's territory"
View I'm Japan.
Japan differs from Great Britain in only
one question. This is in respect to the
right to search a neutral vessel under con-
voy Of a warship of It's own nationality. On
this Japan holds "a neutral vessel under
convoy OF a vessel OF war of its own nation
ality is exempt. except in cases Of grave
suspicion, from a belligerent visitors
search, II the commander Of the convoy
makes a declaration in writing to the eff