The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-07-30

eminent statesmen of that day, who
| participated in its procurement and
acceptance by the two countries, has
| been gone into fully in the effort to
| show that it was meant to give asy-
| lum to prizes in neutral waters: and
| that It's particular purpose was to
| afford the United States an asylum
| for their prizes In Prussian waters.
| Whatever may have been the view
of those representing this country at
| that time, 1t seems clear TO the court
that no such enlarged and far-reach-
| ing view of the treaty as Ia now
| claimed for IL can for a moment be
entertained at this day. In the light
! of present methods of warfare, and
! tho laws, rules and regulations af-
| fecting the neutrality of nations in
existence now for nearly one hundred
years.
Anciently II was believed permits
sible for one nation to grant to an
other rights and privileges in It's wa
tiers not granted to others Such may
| be said to have been the character
of our treaties OF Amity and Com
merce OF 1878 with France: but the
painful outcome of our experiences,
| growing out OF those treaties. and
I the position taken by this govern
ment, ultimately, in connection with
/ them, would seem to dispel the idea
that this country. even in that early
| period, ever intended to afford a har-
Dor of refuge for prizes of war OF
any other nation. and certainly such
idea In now uniformly negatived by
the customs OF all nations Article
XVIII of the Treaty OF Amity and
Commerce 10 substantially in the
terms OF the Prussan treaty now be-
Ing considered and under the inter
! probation placed upon it by the Uni
ted States tsee Mr. Jeffersons letter
Flo Gallatin. June %. 1901. Moore s
| Digest. sec. 1902. page 93I, the claim
here made that prize master could
bring in his prize for indefinite asy-
lum. was not maintained.
Secretary of State Correct.
careful review of the provisions
of the Prussian treaty, when read In
the light of the rulings and inter
probation placed upon other contemt
poraneous treaties. especially Article
XVII of the treaty Of Amity and Com
nlerce with France In 1878, convinces
the court that the Secretary of States
ruling is correct. and that under tht
same prizes cannot be brought into
the waters of the United States for
the purpose OF laying up by a prize
master but can only be brought In hy
the capturing vessel herself, or a wal
vessel acting as convoy to such prize
and then not for an indefinite period
but for the temporary causes recog-
ntzed by international law = -
What are the rights OF the Appaar
under general International law? was
she entitled to come into the waters
of the United States. and If So hai
she the right of asylum therein
These questions must be answered II
4 the light Of that law. The general,
accepted doctrine now is that enlight
ened nations do not allow the use o
their ports az asylum or permanen
rendezvous of prizes of other nations
captured during war. To do so would
tend to involve the neutral powers II
conflict with nations with whom the,
are at peace; and to extend the us
OF their ports to all belhgerents alik'
the opposing vessels so using then
might quickly cause conflict in neu
trail territory. The policy of th'
United States has been, and is con
sistently opposed to such use of theil
waters and harbors: and the history
and origin OF their neutrality laws
and the circumstances of their pas
sage, clearly indicate a purpose tt
prohibit the use of their ports for the
laying ufl OF pelHSeTtHt ptl1eSs
Neutral Waters As Asylum.
/ The right of belligerents TO use
neutral waters as an asylum for prize.
can no longer be successfully con
tended for in the opinion of the court
and that the provisions OF The Hague
convention are cited upon the sub
1ect giving the view OF the American
commissioner In support OF the con
tention, as follows:
The provisions of Articles 81 and
% Of the Hague Convention (XIII.
of 1907, are declaratory OF the exist
ing law of nations, and the fact tina
Article 20, which provided for thu
use of neutral ports by belngeren
prizes. was expressly rejected. ant
IL and ~ adopted by the United
| States, but emphasizes its policy re
specting the subject 1t In true Grea
Britain did not ratify the action OF
Its commissioners, asaentinE to tht