Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-04-16

tue German steamship Marie Glacser
OF Rostock, owned by a llmited-liabil-
ity company of Rostock. left Bristol for
ArchanScl In ballast On August 4 sh.
put into Barry for bunker coal, and left
the same day at T. NJ. On August
. she was captured AT sea. her master
being then ignorant of the declaration
OF war. aud was brought into Glasgow
Tor condemnation. Appearances vera
entered on behalf of On the owner. q,
separate shareholders in the ship, ca
the mortgagee. a Dutch company ca
an English firm claiming for disburse
ments. CD an English firm claim
ing for brokerage and necessa-
RES and co an English firm claiming
for necessaries
AS Mr.. Mount makes clear, tho nrst
question concerned the applica hility OF
that article OF The Hague convention
which provides that enemy merchant
ships which left their last ports OF de-
parturc before tho commencement Of
me war; and are encountered on the
high seas. while still ignorant OF hos
Titles. may not be confiscated But
as Germany has made a reservation
With respect to the article, her subjects
were held not TO be entitled to its
benefits. The vessel was accordingly
condemned as lawful prize. AS to tn.
force OF liens. he Is equally explicit:
1T is well settled that no liens on
vessels or cargo. excepting only the
lien FOR freight on enemy's goods seized
oi lcutTdl NcsSei, are recognized by
a prize court. Liens arc based on
private contract tho captor has no &C
cess to the original agreement and no
way Of disproving a collusive lien, and
in order that the right OF capture may
not become worthless, the capture acts
on tho property without regard to
secret liens
The question OF allowing freight on
enemy goods seized on a neutral vessel
Is not likely to arise in the future, In
n q tI.,,l
ton OF the Declaration OF Paris GS5sp
provision: The neutral nag covers
cnemy's goods. with tho exception OF
contraband OF war"
II is interesting to note that the
blockade order OF tho British govern
ment applying TO all commerce ulti-
mately destined for Germany appeared
after this procurement was made.
Future seizures may raise just the point
mentioned. The paper continues:
The position of the British govern
ment up TO the present time. is this:
II has recognized tho transfer to neu
trail flag OF enemy ships belonging to
companies which were Incorporated In
the enemy country, but all of whose
shareholders are neutral; 1t has waived
Its objections to transfers from COM
paIies incorporated In the enemy coun-
try which were subsidiary to and owned
by United states corporations. provided
such vessels shall take no further part
IN tTaue Win the enemy country. IL
has objected In principle to the trans
fer Of German ships. lying in United
States ports, to citizens of the United
states, but has indicated that it will
waive its objections even to such trans
fers. provided such ships. when trans
ferred, shall not be employed In German
trade"
bought on the High Sens.
The next case considered by Air.
mi nj hn Pnth nd
raised the question OF the validity Of a
transfer OF "a title TO belligorent mer-
chant vessel 10 neutral during a voy
age. y cabled notice OF sale from a
German company and cabled accept
ance from a British company were eS-
changed while the ships were on the
high seas. three days before war was
declared between Great Britain and
Germany. The court held them as law
full prizes. They had not been trans
ferred to British registry, and W ere not
entitled to fly the British flag, by which
alone the nationality of a vessel is de-
termined.
y further application OF this principle
is thus pointed out by the writer:
The neutral nationality OF a vessel
as determined by the flag which she
llies is not lost by the fact that at the
time or capture she is under time char
ter to an enemy citizen or subject Tier
neutral flag will not protect her from
turcd while under charter to the enemy
government or is engaged in unneutral
service"
The final case reviewed by Mr.. Mount
has current interest In the light of
recent charges made by Rear-Admiral
Buchard. Of the French navy, retired,
that neutral and German trawlers In
the North Sea- and the English Channel
were making the extended operations
OF the German submarines possible by
towing them long distances under cover
OF plying their peaceful vocations. He
disooses OF the question as follows:
The question OF tho exemption OF
| enemy's fishing vessels was the next
| to be decided, In the Berlin On August
| ., 1911. the Berlin, Il German drift fish
ing sailing cutter OF ITO metric tons, of
Emden, owned by the Emden Herring
FISHING Company. was captured 100
miles from the English coast and 500
miles from her home port She car
ricd "a crew OF fifteen men, together
with fish, salt, nets and stores. 1t
appeared from her log that she had
been on fishing voyage In tho North
Sea. NO claim was made on behalf of
the vessel. The question was whether
. the vessel was immune from capture
as n coast fishing vessel The court
held that the Berlin did not come with
In the exempted class and condemned
both vessel and cargo.
IF, as Is reported. British trawlcrs
| have been armed for offensive action
against German submarines and Ger
man trawlers have been used in trans
porting mines, both British and Ger
man >trawlers as u class have lost the
privilege of exemption from CAPTURE"