New-York tribune., 1910-08-16
IflaARAT|0N OF LONDON
~ pWarn Support from Iurists
international Conference.
London. August G.

armament prize court Of appeal il
.-i3ent that the enterprise would
s,oned 10 failure unless z code of
and maritime law were provided
.se proposed tribunal Divergent
IS prevailed among nations respect
rarious questions connected with
s-,-;r,e var, and nc international court
- he expected 10 decide controversies
-, tnere were no recognized T1Ies Of
/ ~-.etice OF principles Of Interpretation.
r,a object Of the London conference.
Ai,b Vas called by the British govern
nj and attended by representatives OF
= movers. was the formulation OF a
,,ss Of policy and practice for the guid-
-,e ef the proposed tribunal The dec
,--s-ion was adopted after prolonged
s.s-uss;on and mutual concessions as
a. ror1prouise. AS NJ. Renault ex-
| -,,,,e5 IL OF behalf Of the drafting COM
Ito. the solutions We're not in agree
-ssn+ with opinion and law in each coun-
- INT representeG a deliberate attempt
~ the part Of the delegates to find
-.ssle way. The result Of diplomatic
,o,siliatlon has been general distrust of
he reformed code.
-his feeling was vaguely expressed
s--ne the sessions Of the International
,sr Association at the Guildhau this
Four papers were read on vari-
exsspecrs Of the declaration. and there
vvs aesultory discussion, but there was
11r Of
] ,sse IS q whole. nor was the opinion eS-
--sssed virh strong emphasis that the
cu-r q appeal al The Hague would be
-s-th TIE sacrifice O. minor points OF
--irctrle and procedure. Dr.. Baty
s--srueuslv opposed il as "a belligerents'
5erIs~a-5o- against neutTaIs. a naval
declaration against merchants and q
H theorists declaration against practical
Il business people" IN his opinion It con-
ceded 10 the cruiser power TO interfere
vith tie most innocent voyage and
cargo and 10 blow the neutral ship out Of
later. and presented the merchant and
vessel owner with the doubtful ad-
vantage Of costly Litigation before d
c-,-iousIv assorted tribunal
This was Z distinctly pessinlistic view.
Certainly there would be greater risks of
Corfscation and loss OF ship and cargo
under existing practice than there would
he under thz mora definite and enlight-
ene6 c0de n beliigerent and neutral
-ghrE and the owners Of private prop
e-Tv would naturally prefer an interna-
~--F
court, and would not he likely to find II
ei-her more expensive or less advan-
rsgeous 10 their interests.
The Right Hon. Arthur Cohen. in an
exhaustive paper which was read by
Judge PhiLimere. considered the pro
VISIONS Of the declaration respecting the
lsv of blockade a fair compromise be
tween English and Continental prize
lar and q complete code. remarka bic for
csa-ness. precision and comprehensive
caaracte-- He also recognized the ez-
esp-ielal merits Of the articles relating
la oonuabsnd. and described the clauses
Tstsrring 10 unneutraI service. oompeu-
Eron and resistance TO search as fairly
Erisfsctory. He condemned. however.
e vague and indefinite the passages
1aacsT8inE the destruction Of neutral
rrizes In certain contingencies. and oh
1sfed strongly 10 the articles dealing
7irh the transfer Of an enemy ship to a
Neutral flag as being Incompatible with
English and American practice.
He expressed disapproval Of the tests
= determining the character of an en-
e'nE snip. and regarded il as most IN
fortunate that the following questions
We're let unsettled: 81 Is the rule Of
l'7S to he maintained % What con
slt1tes the enemy character Of the
owner OF goods on board merchant
s-lps2 f2l II what circumstances and
SUBJECT 10 what conditions should the
conversion on the high seas Of merchant
shirs into Tarships he allowed Legal
e1iPPiing hy an English barrister was
1erha ps unaroi6a ble when SO many con
oesslons we're made 70 Continental opin-
'o7 n the declaration, but Mr.. Cohen
higtt have admitted frankly that full
eallrsi tents were received for these de-
partlres from English practice. 4 com
f1o--lse could never hare been effected
lhere had not been a disposition or
IF par of ali The delegates 10 adjust
differences ard 70 balance gains and
lasseg
~ John Nacdorell followed Nr. Cohen
u Paving q hearty tribute TO the dec
s!ale1 aS an impartial and successful
attempt % substitute uniformity and
er'alnty for diversity and obscurity in
-'eT7a'ionaI relations, and to reconcile
-e rights Of belIgzrents with those Of
-7s-Ea- commerce AS professor Of com
a''sliye law ia the University Of Lon
SUI anG master Of the Supreme Court
q mad his reputation 10 sustain IS Z
s- Splitting controversalist. and before
-7 ended he had emphasized great
many ohjeotors 10 the proposed code
- me regulation Of naval and rrarcan-
lie practice
FrotesSc- G. Noble Gregory. dean Of
LIS iae1l-y C law in the University OF
was equally critical. unconciha-
md flssy n his paper on The
-'llle - Continuous EoyaEc IN
'--f,e2-i- every one IN this influential
- eTsnoe - International law who
'A iart n this discussior seemed % be
-7l4'ee "it- admiration for the skill
Taifaess 81 ;ac compromise. and
- @as -tte--- ..Irhout faith that II
S-.l f'a. be'sr-c opcrat!vc. The naval
nee 'as clearly 4 long way in ad-
1''e oi TIE GDtimisls aud pedants who
practice of attending interna-
- -sse.lo olies and hol.aobbing with