Evening star., 1915-09-17
The Confscated Cargoes.

Appeal is certain to be taken from
the decisions of the British prize
court in condemnation of the Amer
lean cargoes of four steamships.
These cargoes, chiefly meat products,
are conhscated on the ground that
while consigned to neutral countries
thew we're destined for consumption
by the German military and naval
forces. There was no positive proof
that these cargoes were in fact IN
tended, though consigned to neutral
ports, for German consumption. The
only ground upon which their ulti-
mate destination was held to be Ger
many's military establishment was
that these cargoes were greatly IN
excess of the quantities imported in
normal times by the countries to
which they were consigned.
In the so-called continuous voy-
. ages" decisions of the United States
courts, growing out of the civil war
blockade, the ultimate destination
principle was maintained, but the
courts OF this country held strictly
to a line of reasonable proof as es-
sential to the establishment of the
contraband character of these car
goes. Goods seized under the con-
tinuous voyage principle had to be
obviously not of a character usable
in the country of immediate consign-
ment, while OF character usable by
the fighting forces OF the Confederacy.
In the Afatamoros cases the court
modined this rule to the extent that
it viewed as permissible the shipment
OF caFgoes to neutral ports adjacent
to the United States, where the
goods went into the general stock
without specific purpose to transfer
them to the Confederate forces.
The English prize court has not ap-
piled the principle of the continuous
voyage cases literally or reasonably
in condemning these American car
goes. 1t has not proved German des-
tination conclusively or even strong
ly presumptively. The goods seized
were certainly usab1e in the coun-
tries OF consignment. The people of
those countries are of the same kind
and needs and tastes as their Ger
man neighbors. 1t is conceivable
first that these seized goods were de-
signed to replace, in Denmark, for
instance. goods that had been sold
by Denmark to Germany upon the
outbreak of the war. Or they might
have been intended to take the place
of goods usually obtainable from
Germany, but beyond reach after the
breaking out OF the war, owing to the
prohibition of German exports.
Thus with two possible legitimate
Danish uses for even the extraordi-
nary excess of meat imports COM
prised in these cargoes it does not
follow that that excess over normal
Danish importations constitutes a
the civil war cases our courts re-
quired incontrovcrtible proof. In the
present case the British court has
conhscated on proof that is virtually
no proof at all.
The right of appeal has been
granted to the owners of the seized
goods. The United States has al
ready declared that it will not accept
prize court decisions that do not
square with international law. In all
probability the owners of these goods
will appeal directly to the higher
British tribunals. and If they are
finally denied justice there this gov
ernment will take their cases into the
court OF diplomatic action. 1t is in
conceivable that the United States
will accedc to conhscation that is
contrary to the equities for which it
has steadfastly stood in every phase
OF the present international crisis.
lrying to devise peace terms that