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

! Prize cases In the English courts
( arising out Of the present war were
! from the outset OF especial interest to
me American public az the greatest OF
| the neutral maritime nations. Now
that additional burdens have been put
upon neutral shipping by the British
government in its attempt to blockade
Germany. knowledge of the attitude of
the English admiralty courts and the
direction their decisions are taking can
hardly fail to be OF profit to American
shipowners and students of interna-
tional law. Russell T. Mount. an ad
miralty lawyer OF New York City. has
compiled record OF which shows that
several well-defined principles have
been established by the English prize
courts In paper on this subject
printed in the current number of the
Columbia Law Review, he reviews these
cases in detail
As he finds IL worth noting by way
Of introduction. no British court had
sat AS "a prize court since adjudicating
cases growing out of the Crimean War
For sixty years the Important decisions
in this branch OF Jurisprudence were
those handed down by the United
States courts in the Civil and In the
Spanish American Wars, and by the
courts of Russia and Japan during
their conflict AS far back as 1891
Justice was declared to be prize
court with the jurisdiction OF the
former High Court OF Admiralty acting
as n prize court. In addition, at the
beginning OF the present war. a com
mission from the crown authorizing
and requiring the High Court Of Jus
tic. TO proceed judicially in all cap
lures. seizures. etc. according TO the
course OF admiralty and the law OF
nations and to condemn such ships AS
belonged tn the German empire or to
any inha hitant OF its dominions.
separate and similar commission was
issued with reference to vessels and
cargoes belonging to Austria Hungary
Mr.. Mount says:
The Case of the Chile.
The first prize case arising out OF
the present war, to be argued and de-
cidcd in the English courts, was that
OF the Chile. The question involved
was the right OF one hclligerent to seize
the merchant vessels Of an enemy,
which were in the ports of the former
on the outbreak OF war. On August 4.
1914 the German bark Chile, of Bro
men, arrived at Cardiff in ballast; at
IL L. NJ. on the same day war was de-
clarcd between Great Britain and Ger
many; and on August the bark was
detained by the collector Of customs at
Cardiff. 1t was held that the bark
was a merchant vessel belonging to
Germany. an enemy country, and that
by international law the crown was
entitled to seize the ship. although she
was in port before the commencement
. of hostilities. The claim and appear
ancc Of the owners Of the bark was
stricken out on the ground that the
test affidavit presented by their agents
did not disclose the name Of the owners,
and did not show any grounds emitting
them AS alien enemies to appear in a
British court.
proclamation by one belligerent
granting days of grace for the de-
narturc from its ports Of merchant
vessels belonging To tho enemy. the
right Of a belligerent to seize and con-
denim all merchant vessels OF the enemy
found within its ports at the outbreak
Of the war is undoubted."
Mr.. Mount records the fact that the
Japanese allowed the Russian ships in
their harbors on February Q. 1904. seven
| days in which to depart, and exempted
| them from capture. provided they sailed
! for the nearest Russian port. On their
| side. the maximum grace allowed to
Japanese vessels by Russian authori-
| ties was forty-eight hours. In like
| manner, the declaration Of blockade Of
Confederate ports declared by Presi-
| dent Lincoln April 81. 1851 gave fifteen
! days after the establishment OF the
! blockade for neutral vessels to depart.
Thirty days were given Spanish ships
by the American government to leave
| ports of the United States after the
| declaration Of war. Spain allowed
| American vessels five days from the
| date of her decree on April %, 1898.
| Mr. Mount goes on to say:
| I'm the Chile. the Attorney General
| asked merely for an order of detention
of the vessel. pending inquiries as to
! the reservations which the German
! government had made to the articles
| of The Hague convention. above quoted,
| and the decree was that the bark had
| been lawfully seized as good and law :
| full prize, and that she should be de-
| tained by the marshal until further
! order of the court.
| "No agreement was subsequently
| reached between Great Britain and Ger
/ many as to days of grace applicable to
| vessels Of ono belligercnt on the out
! break of the war, and all such vessels,
| therefore, presumably will be con-
| demned.
The striking out Of the claim and
| appearance Of the owners OF the Chile
was i'm accord with the early authori-
| ties. II has been held that an enemy
| cannot appear as claimant by his affi-
| davit that he comes under Il flag of
| truce, a cartel, a llconsc, or some other
| act of public authority, suSpending his
! hostile character. Thus, IL an encmy's
ship Is captured within the territorial
waters Of u neutral country. the claim
must be made. not ny tho enemy owner
but by the neutral government"
| Decision on the Marie GIncscr.
! The next reported decision Is the
Marie Glaeser, involving claims of a
| mortgage and maritime liens against
| an cnemy's vessel. On August l, 1914.