Evening star., 1915-01-31

HNlHE seizure OF lne cottoH-ito'Ii
steamer Dacia. about whose
transfer to American registry
q from German ownership ques-
tion has been raised by the British
government, again brings to the front
the query of prize courts 1t is re-
sarded as inevitable that the ship must
eventually go before British prize
court 1t is equally as certain that the
burden of the proof as to the validity
OF the new American registry will be
on the purchaser of the vessel. VI
course. the American government can,
and probably will. take the case up
by means of diplomatic discussion after
the prize court rules. if the ruling, In
the minds of President Wilson and the
administration leaders, should seem to
be In conflict with the facts and eVi-
dcnce.
What has particularly raised sus-
picions in the minds of the British as
to the validity of the transfer is that
the ship, formerly owned in Germany.
was purchased by a German American,
and is TO sail for a German port with
"a cargo of cotton. Cotton is not on
the contra band list of Great Britain.
and the stoppage of the vessel by Brit
ish warshipS on the high seas is not
for the reason that she carries cotton.
but that the ship might be used by
the Germans after the cargo is de-
posted.
Had the Dacia sailed at the beginning
of the war, her cargo also might have
been considered a prize of war. Cotton
at that time was on the list of condl-
tionaI contraband. and the British gov
ernment might have said that there
was no civilian population in Germany
70 whom the cargo could be consigned,
as under the elaborate German mill
tarY system all males are ellSiple Tor
military service.
The prize court will be governed by
the well established rules of such tri-
bunaIs. but the United States is not
bound to accept the findings.
The general subject of prize dates
back to the days of SaNagery. when IN
tribal conquests the properties of the
conquered we're divided among those
who subdued them. During the last
few hundred years 1t has become the
custom of the more civilized countries
70 conserve the properties of dlsinter-
.sted persons, the nom bearers of arms.
and later on the lotting of even con-
Ouered territory was prohibited, the in
vading army being allowed to take
only such properties as 1t needed and
was willing and able to pay for.
At sea the practice has been different.
II has been the custom to seize vessels
on the high seas, take them to port, di-
vide a certain part of the spoils among
the officers and men taking part in the
capture and pay over the balance to
the government The law was to de,
liver the prize to an official designated
10 take charge and adjudicate the prize.
This was the first prize court Later
prize courts were established by inter-
national agreement subject to inter-
national regulations.
"a
In England that practice still pre-
walls. In the United states a law en-
acted in 1899. after the Spanish war.
did away with division of share of
the prize among the officers and men
and decreed that the entire value of the
prize shall be turned over to the gov
ernnent
There had previously been the bar
barrie practice of paying head money.
so much per man for each person who
went down on an enemy's vessel that
was sunk. payment being made to each
oftlcer and man aboard the ship maxi
ing the capture.
To be a good prize of war the cap
ture must be on the high seas or in the
territorial waters of one of the bellig-
crents, and must be by armed vessel
duly commissioned by the sovereign of
the captor. a capture made in neutral
waters is considered in xiolation of
neutrality and must be restored at the
discretion of the neutral power.
Capture may be actual or construc-
tive. Constructive or joint captors are
those who have assisted the actual
raptors by assisting them or intimidat-
ing the enemy. All public ships of war
within signaling distance are usually
held to be entitled to share in the
prize money. This regulation is incor-
porated in the code of prize laws of the
United States as of June 30. 1864.
Conflicting n rails b..S
led to many regulations and noditica-
tons of the general right of belliger-
.nts TO seize enemy's property wherev-
found.
The right of belliGerent is claimed
10 seize and search any vessel of which
there is reasonable ground for suspi-
clon that il is conveying aid or succor
TO an enemy. If this vessel is of such
size or its cargo is of such material
that this search cannot be readily made
at sea. the vessel is conducted to the
nearest prize court and there the mat
ter is adjudicated. If the seized vessel
Is not shown to be good prize, as hav-
ing IN its cargo support for an enemy,
and II II is shown that the grounds for
suspicion were not reasonable then
the government OBTAINING this vessel
must pay damages for this unreasona-
hle detention. This provision of in
ternational law in admiralty Great
Britain has acknowledged and ex-
pressed a Willingness to abide by in
the recent note on the subject of In
-.
The United States has by precedent
recognized such obligation In the IA
nous Perthshire case the United States
was an offender. and this precedent is
especially applica BILE at this time as the
offense was against British vessel
and restitution made to the British
government. The Perthshire loaded
with cotton AT Mobile. May 3, 1861
June she was captured by the United
States ship Massachusetts June IL
she was released by the captain of the
Niagara. who considered the capture
Illegal as by order of the de-
partment no neutral vessel not hay-
ing on board contrab band of war was to
be detained or captured unless at
tempting to leave or enter a blockaded
port. after the notification of the block
ade had been Endorsed on her register"
On account of this detention the own
@rs were paid by the United States
through the British government $1,000
gold.
When a vessel is seized on the high