The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-10-07
Opinion Of Far-Reaching Inn
portance Handed Down by
u. S. Circuit Court Here
THOUSANDS OF OTHER
CASES ARE APPARENT
Italian Ship Attualita, Released
. by Judge Waddill. Is Held
fo. 100000 for Owners Of
Shi Sunk

Ships. whether armed or not in the
actual possession, custody or control
of a foreign government and operated
by H. are held by the United states
Circuit Court of Appeals here. to make
1hc nation controlling them morally
! Responsible and the ships themselves
liza bile to damages This the court held
yesterday in the case of the Italian
T steamship Attualita. liheled by the
owners of the steamship Nina, which
was sunk near Gibraltar in the Medi-
terranenn Sea on July %. last. and
which was appealed from the Dis
trict Court al Norfolk In reaching
its findings the court reversed Judge
! Waddill who in the lower court had
= ordered the Attualita released.
The opinion Of the court. written
by Circuit Judges Pritchard and
i. Knapp, and District Judge Rose. be-
fore whom the cause was argued
3 Thursday, Is one of far-reaching i'm
portanee. 1t involves a big interna-
Itionai question and thousands Of ships
which APPARENTLY are operated by
their owners and fen whose action. in
the language of the court no govern
ment is responsible at law or in
morals
100000 Damages Asked.
TIE case vas brought before the
Critoc Sia - District Court at Nor
<sk by Basil George Mandakas, repres
scnting the owners OF the Greek
Steamship Nina who sought to re-
cover damages in tho sum of $780,
4 90" Cor that ycsse's loss. Judge
NSae iii found In faror OF the At
t$es ~ and the Italian EN- eassy and
fov~, rrant as arpici curiae, abating
IT, at achment and releasing the ship
fe hat
Of the lower court becomes effective
was given for an appeal and It was
: taken. being brought in the Gniteo
States Circuit Court AT Richmond. To
bear the case at special session was
talled and argument in the matter by
John M Woolsey. Edward r. Baird.
1r., and ]. Parker kiriin for the APP
reilant. Robert NJ Hughes for A,
NfIoio master of the Attuaiita. and
Claimant and exceptant, appellee; and
FLOYD Hughes and Francis Rawle for
me Italian government as amici curiae
] For the Italian government the case
was submitted also on brief by Hughes
g. F,ndeventer and Joseph w. Hen
<derson. The disposition of the matter
by the Circuit Court was with all
sped consistent with the Importance
Of the decision in so weighty a mat
ter and the opinion, written by the
court was brief
e 10 Appeal To Supreme Court.
THE matter. II is expected, will find
Its way next to the United States
Supreme Court. counsel for the owners
OF the Attualita and the Italian gov
eminent having indicated they will
carry the case to the highest court on
appeal,
J The opinion of the Circuit. Court
handed down late yesterday afternoon
Feads as follows:
The appellee steamship makes FIVE
contentious
I. The decree below is not Anal and
therefore not appealable
The libel in this case Is In rem. The
vessel by the decree below is released
from arrest. This In effect terminates
the proceeding as against her. Coun-
sci upon both sides seem to be at
one. that as practical matter. II this
1decree remains unreversed, nothing
1 else can be done In the court below
which would be worth doing. The
question whether a decree Is final and
dppealable il not determined by the
name which the court below gives II,
court on consideration Of the essence
OF what IL done by the decree. Potter
W. Beal ct al. so Fed. $50.
Immunity II Denied.
. The steamship says that the ques-
I ton involved 10 one Of Jurisdiction.
Tho appeal should. therefore, have
been taken to the Supreme Court.
Tho objection which previled in the
court below was not to the jurisdic-
ton OF the District Court of the United
States a. Federal Court. but was
an objection which went equally TO
abe jurisdiction OF any court. State or
Federal. and for that reason the APP
peal to this court was properly taken
5. 1t Is asserted that the steamship
II immune to proceedings in any
court.
1t Is admitted that to give this i'm
munity It will be necessary to take
step beyond that which has been taken
sin any decided case. although 1t Is
argued that the logic Of some de-
hcisions which have been made require
Efhst step. We are frankly reluctant
tn take It. There are many reasons
which suggest the inexpediency and
the impolicy Of creating a class OF
vessels for which no one 10 respon-
Ssible in anyway. For the public arm
Cd ships OF a sovereign. and for those
whether armed or not, which are In
the actual possession, custody and
control Of the nation itself. and are
operated by 1t, the nation would be
Emoraily responsible. although without
her consent, not answerable legally in
her own or other courts. For torts
and contracts Of an ordinary vessel
ship In this case. and there are now
apparently Thousands like II. II opor-
s1led BIZ IT. owners and for its actions
NO government II responsible It law
~ n morale
sa Not = Rolltfcal oneseaon.