The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-11-08

ftSktiti . "a t4ftSafS- III pFAGtce lHt 80
aeteutiorS have not been unifcrmiiy
based on proofs obtained at the tiiac
OF Sc, cure, hut many vessels have been
detained while search was made Tor
evidence of the contrahand cha racter
/ Of cargeeS or of an intention To eVadc
( the neniutercourse measures Of Great
I Britain. The question. consequently.
/ has been Dne OF evidence TO support
a belief of--in many eases u bare sus-
, picton enemy destination, or oc-
! Casionaliy Of enemy origin or the
goods involved. Whether this evi-
dence should be obtained by search N
sea before the vessel or cargo j.
taken into port. and what the char
( actt~ Of The evidence should be. Will n
Is necessary TO justify the detention.
are the pcints.to witch ! direct Your
ExceHency's attention.
90 In regard Is scarch at sea, an
examination of the irstI actions issued
+ to naval commander of the United
States, Great Britain. RUSSIA. Japan.
Spain, Germany aed France from
+ 1883 to the beginning If the prese at
war shows thai search in Port was
not contemplated BY the government
OF any Of these countries. ca the
contrary. the context Of tae respective
instructions shows that search at sea
was the procedure expected to be fol
these instructions Impress upon the
nara. officers tire necessity OF acting
VII W Itfuost 1noderation--and in
some cases commanders are speci3-
~ 3D.. ..EetIl,c-c ti--~in exercising the
right OF visit and search to apriA
undue deviation OF the vessel TO u
her course.
"(5i An examination Of the opinions
OF the most eminent text writers On
give practically no consideration to the
question OF search in port outside Of
examination ia the course of regular
prize court proceedings.
90 The assertion by His Majcsty's
government that the position of the
United States IN relation 10 search at
sea is Inconsistent with ith practice
during the American Civil War ii based
upou mtscorccptiou. frregulariti
there may have been at the beginning
of that war. but a careful search OF
the records of This government as to
the practice of its commanders shows
conelustyely that there were no in
stances when vessels were brought
into port for search prior TO in#,itutiug
prize court proceedings. or that cap
torres were made upon other grounds
than, In the words of the America
note of November I, 1914, evidence
found on the ship under Investigation
and not upon circumstances from ex-
ternal sources copy of the instruc-
ton issued to American naval officers
on August 10. 1852, for their guidance
during the Civil War. IS appended.
"f7} The British contention that
modern conditions justify bringing
vessels into port for search is based
upon the size and seaworthiness of
modern carriers of commerce aud the
difficulty of uncovering the real trans
action In the intricate trade operations
Of the present day. Il is believed that
commercial transactions Of the pres
ent time. hampered as they are by
censorship of telegraph and postal COM
mnnication on the part Of belltgerents
are essentially no more complex and
disguised than In the wars or recent
years, during which the practice OF
obtaining evidence in port TO determine
whether vessel shouid be held for
prtae proceedings WAS not adopted
The effect of the sixe and seawor,hi-
moss Of merchant vessels upon their
search at aeh has been submitted TO q
board Of naval experts. which report.
that
At no period In history has IT beer
considered necessary to remove every
package Of ships cargo to establish
the character ana nature of her trade
or the service on which she is hon4d
nor ia such removal necessary,
The facilities for boarding and in.
spection Of modern ships are III fact
greater than In former times, and nc
difference. so far as the necessities nj
the case are concerned, can be seen be
tween the search OF ship of a thous.
ana tons and one of twenty thous-
ana tons--except possibly Il difference
in time-~for the purpose Of establishing
fully the character OF her cargo ard
the nature Of her service and destlua-
ton This method would he
direct aid TO the heiliverants con
csrned I'm that 1t would release a bell
ligerent vessel ovethauiing the neu-
trial from IT'S duty Of search and Sc,
II free for further helllgerent opera
tons
"fS) Turning TO the character and
suffleiercy of the evidence of the con
trabond nature of shipments TO war
rant the detention Of a suspected YES
sci OF cargo fer prize proee edingx. II
VIII be recalled that when a vessel
Is brought III for adjudication courts
Of prize have heretofore been bound
by we'll established and long settled
practice IN consider AT the first hear
ing only the shsp,s papers and docn-
tneHts, sud the goods found on board,
together with the written replies Of the
ofh"era ard s9amen to standing inter
roGatories taken, under oath, alone and
i separately, as soon az possible and
without communication with or in =
structlon b. counsel. IN order to avoid
possibility Of corruption aud fraud
Practice OF nifea states Courts
"(9) Additional evidence was not al
lowed 10 be introduced except upon an
order of the court for further proof,
and then only after the cause had been
fully heard upon the facts already. In
evidence or when this evidence fur
nished ground for prosecuting the
inquiry further. THIS WAS the nrac-
tice of the United states courts dur
ing the War of 1912, the American
civil War. and the Spanish-Amer n
War. as is evidenced by the reported
decisions of those courts. and has been
The practice of the British prize courts
for over "a century. This practice h7s
been Glanced by the British rrize court
rules adopted for The present war by
the Order In Council % August Z Tn
der these new rules there Is no longer
hrst hearing on the evidence de-
rived from the ship. and the prize
court Is no longer precluded from re-
ce4tfhR eSiFinsie evidence for whfrn A
suggestion has not been laid in the
PREPARATORY evidence The result is