Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1916-05-16
DENY APPAM AMENABLE
TO ANY AMERICAN COURT
contention Is Mado by Counsel for
Germany In Arguments mt
Norfolk.
CoUDERT OPENS DISCUSSION
Only Speaker for British Owners, Ho
Contends That Prize OF War Cam
not Take Refuge in United States
Port.

not Take Refuge in United Statos
Port.
NORFOLK. VA, May 15.--Contending
mat prize OF war cannot take refuge
IN an American port: that In so doing.
The neutrality OF the United States has
h'cn violated: that thereby the Appam
had been outlawed under international
Law" and that In the case under con-
liberation the German government has
iailcd to present evidence that the
raider Moewe was A duly commissioned
"arship. Frederic r. Coudert this
morning opened the argument in tho
libel cases in the Federal District Court
before Judge Edmund waddill.
Responding in behalf OF tho German
government. Norvin Lindheim. Of New
York. and John w. Clifton. OF Washing
ton. took the position that tho prize
ship Appam was not amenable TO any
. court or authority OF tho United States
These contentious. they declared. wero
upheld by the decisions OF tho courts.
nsages of this country and international
law.
The case was resumed this morning
IN an atmosphere surcha-ged with in
''iisp interest on inc part OF the attOr
neys. shipping men and other spccta-
tors. who occupied every available seat
IN tho courtroom. Preceding the argu-
'nents Judge Waddili announced the
admission Of the documentary evidence
OF the German courts that prize court
proceedings had been instituted In Ber-
IN against the Appam prior to the libel
proceedings in tho United States He
also announced that no word had been
received from tho State Department
relative to the admission OF Ambassador
Won Bc-nstorffs reply to Secretary Lam
sings ruling In the case. He also ad-
mit'cd the views on tho treaty OF l7sa
~ the United States commissioners
ADAMS. Jefferson and Franklin-cover-
Ing the question OF prizes of war and
their admission into American ports
MI Coudert was the mrs: speaker
He announced that he would be the
only speaker for the British owners
tie argued that prize ship can only
occupy neutral port because Of un-
seaworthiness, stress Of weather. or
shortage of fuel or provisions. and tina.
u must clear such a port within n
reasonable time. He based these
claims rules 81 and &c Of Conven-
lion Kill, Of The Hague Conference OF
1907. accepted and recognized by United
|HAcS tOuElS re CcClaTeu inc lrtiS
stan treaty OF 1892 does not prevent the
application OF general Laws Of nations.
that Il related to sending prizes under
convoy. did not permit Of an tndcfpite
stay. and. II SO construed. would be
violation of neutrality. He closed
ny indicating the right OF admiralty
courts TO outlaw. seize and dispose Of
such prizes.
All three o. the counsel for the Ger
man government based their argument
on the contention that tho United
states courts and the government itself
lacked Jurisdiction. and could exercise
no control over the .Appam after she
entered the port Of Newport News. ex-
cept 10 require intcrnment for the
duration Of the war. Mr.. Lindheim
sprung a surprise when he contended
that II the United States believed It
had Jurisdiction over the Appam under
the existing treaty. officials had failed
"a attempt TO exercise il by ordering
Lieutenant Berg 10 clear the American
court entered In Il given time, as Inter
national rules require. Counsel based
its argument that the government and
it's courts had no control over the APP
pam on the Prussian treaty, and on the
claim that neutral country has TO
Jurisdiction TO determine action in it's
or ts property IL held. The attorneys
declared that such only would be per-
Missile had the prize been taken in
territorial waters. They denied that
any violation OF neutrality had been
s. proved.
Mr. L!ndheim said tina. In the his
tory OF this country no prizes ever had
been restored 10 their original owners
except under two conditions: first,
when the prizes were captured within
the. territorial waters OF the United
states; and second, when the captur-
ing vessel was illegally armed in the
United States.
Our position is that the libelant
is trying to make new law" said Mr..
L!ndheim. in closing. Our position is
that International law should not be
changed during the tendency OF this
struggle"
Mr.. Lindheim concluded his argu-
ment at l:l5 o'clock, and the argument
for the respondents was taken up by
Walter s. Penheld, on the converting
of the afternoon session.
Mr.. Penfeld's opening contention was
that, under a fundamental principle
of International law. possession by cap
ture conferred a title upon tho captor
that could not be Invested except by
u competent prize tribunal in tho cap
tors own country. He said that the
right Of the court sitting in a. captor
country to condemn prize lying in
neutral port was firmly established.
Argument for the respondents was
closed by John w. Clifton, leading
counsel for the German government.
Tie stated that the action OF the
spondent in bringing the prize into an
American port was justified by the
treaties In existence between the Unit
cd States and Germany. and by the gen.
cral doctrine OF asylum under the law
of nations. The acts of respondents
), since the capture, he said. were justi-
: fed by the law and precedent of the
United States and the law Of nations.
Argument will be resumed at 1910
tomorrow morning.