The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1915-11-29
The Hambwg-American Case.

posed to complain 1t part of the game Of
lwar even il it did constitute infraction of some
of our neutrality provisions. Actually it could
hurt nobody but the allies and they, events
proved were more than able to look after their
end of the game.
very clear distinction must be made between
the things which government is bound by the
rules of international law to prevent and the acts
which it undertakes to prevent by its own laws
though not required to do so by international law
The rule appears to be that if nation by its own
law forbids certain act which is otherwise egiti-
mate and fails to enforce that law, such failure
may be regarded a departure from neutrality
to which belgerent is entitled to take excep-
ton
| The famous instance of this principle is the
Alabama case, which was not decided against Great
Britain, so many suppose, on the principle that
she was bound to prevent her citizens from selling
vessels of war to the enemy, but on the theory
that having voluntary undertaken to forbid that act
by her municipal law it was departure from neu-
trality to negligenty permit the transfer to be
made after due protest from the United States.
Had it appeared, at the beginning of the present
war, that municipal law clearly forbids the
clearing from ports of vessels with provisions
or munitions for German warships, notwithstand-
ing which the government knowingly permitted
such ships to depart, Great Britain would have had
a substantial right of action against could it
be made to appear that the provisioning of any
German warshp had resulted in additional loss to
the allies navy merchant marine. Probably no
such claim exists, in the first place because such
provision ships were sent out without the knowl-
edge of the government and secondly because only
one of them, the Berwind ever delivered any of
her cargo and that to warshp. the Cap Trafalgar,
which was destroyed Immediately by the Carmania
In the of the Sacramento, however there
seems to be some doubt She left San Francisco
protests of the British consul there and took
her cargo to Won Specs fleet which shortly
thereafter destroyed Craddocks squadron off the
coast of Chile. If it should appear that the United
States authorities at San Francisco were negligent
in not holding the Sacramento and that the ability
of Won Specs fleet to engage and destroy Grad
docks squadron directly due to the receipt OF
the Sacramentos cargo, then a claim for damages
would exist.
By the rules of international law the citizens
of neutral nation may sell anything even an
armed warship, to belligerent. As against this
there is another rule that neutral must not per-
init its ports to be used base from which
belligerent ships are fitted out The rules are not
mutually contradictory though the margin of dis
tinction is small. Thus the Newport News Com
pany would be entitled Tin the absence of local
law to the contrary to build battleship. guns
and ALL speculation and send it across to a
French or English port and offer it for sale to the
allies. But they could not build the ship on con-
tract for the British government and turn il owe.
to British crew few miles away from the coast
OF Virginia Could the company, then, build the
warshIp on contract for the British government and
deliver it at Liverpool? In other words is the
pla Of -.t,.
is made the dominating factor? That point has
not been decided but it is probable that the place
of delivery controls. For as long as the ship re-
mains in the hands OF a neutral crew it can hardly
be said to be armed expedition
What then is the case as regards the sending
of munitions and supplies to a belligerent warsbin
at sea: One may state at that the case is
not covered by direct decision On the one hand
the sending to beligerent ship, stationary for
want OF fuel IN mid ocean, cargo of coal is in
a sense fitting out of warship from our ports
and on the other hand is different in principle
from sending the same coal to a warship living
in the same predcament at Nassau or Port HaniI
ton.
But If belligerent warship can be coaIed in
that way in mid ocean it can be coaed three miles
off Sandy Hook and that would be exactly the
same as being coaled in New York Harbor But
OeISeIeht WarshipS cannot receive coal and SIM
plies in neutral harbors according to the rules oil
international law. except in small quantities.
enough to take them to their nearest home mort |
And they have only twenty-four hours to do If in
For this reason it would appear that International
law really does prohibit the sending out from
neutral ports Of merchant ships laden with sup-
Plies and coal for belligerent war vessels And II
that is so there a grave breach of Diplomatic
etiquette committed by Capt Boyd if he assist
ed IN the sending out of such coal and supplies and
the government should demand his recall As for |
the HamburgAmerican officials now being tried |
the charge against them is violation of III. do !
nestic law of the United States by making false
registrations of the vessels in question Interna
tional law provides penalties for its breach !,
the case of individuals. Whether they can be CON-
vlcted is technical legal question. That Cant
Boyd violated the rules of international law if
he had anything to do with sending out the Ber
wind and other ships, is reasonably probable and
should result in his removal, whatever his other
activities may have been.
Steam Roller in Congress.
The administrations steam roller-Albert Sid.
II