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

/ the Hague Convention, though most
I of the other powers. some forty-three
| In number. including Germany and
! the United States, did. still. II never
theless shows what the policy OF the
United States and Germany alike
waters and harhors for belligerent
prizes. Articles 81 and "a are as fol-
lows:
Article 81. A prize may only be
brought into neutral port on ac-
count of uNseaworthiness. stress of
weather, or want of fuel or provi-
sions.
ut must leave as soon as the cir
| cumstances which justified it's entry
neutral power must order 1t to leave
at once. should 1t fail to obey, the
neutral power must employ the means
at it's disposal to release 1t with Its
officers and crew and to intern the
prize crew"
Article %. A neutral power must,
similarly, release a prize brought into
one of its ports under circumstances
| other than those referred to in Article
FL"
! The American delegates reported
| regarding these Articles:
| Articles 81 and rs relate to the
admission of prizes to neutral ports.
I Articles Fl and az seem to be I'M
| objectionable. Article % authorizes
the neutral to, permit prizes to enter
its ports and foreman there pending
action on their cases by the proper
! prize courts. This is Objectionable
| for the reason that 1t involves a neu-
trail in participation in the war to the
extent of giving asylum to prize
which the belligerent may not be able
to conduct to a home port. This ar
/ ticle represents the revival of an an
cient abuse, and should not be APP
/ proved
The Hague Convention (XII) was
| signed at The Hague on the 18th of
October. 1907. and was ratified by the
Senate of the United States in execu-
tive session on the nth of April,
1908. That body. however, excepted
and excluded Adticle 20 (36. Stat. l..
part 2. p. 2a3s).
| The court quoted Mr.. Stewards
view:
| Mr. Seward. Secretary of State, re-
! plying to the Peruvian Legation as
to the position OF the United States
respecting the war between Spain and
| Peru, said:
| This government will observe the
neutrality which is enjoined by Its
| own municipal law and by the law
of nations. No armed vessels of either
party viii be allowed to bring their
| prizes into the ports of the United
States" Moore's Digest. Sec. 1902. p.
| 1888
| Courts Jurisdiction.
Considering the question OF the
/ Jurisdiction of the court to entertain
| these suits for restitution of the APP
pam and cargo the court said that the
| jurisdiction and authority of the
court of admiralty of the United
| States to entertain possessory actions
| for the restitution to their owners
! prizes of war, seized for violation OF
the neutrality laws is no longer open
| for serious consideration. The sub
ject was long one of much contro-
| versy particularly whether restitu-
ton should be made by the executive
or judicial branches of the govern
! ment, and the authorities for a time
sustained the view that the courts
were without such power. But this
decision is no longer maintained, &C
cording to the court, and has not
been since the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of the
| Betsy. The court cited the decision
In the case of the Santissima Trini-
dad, tried in the United States Dis
trict Court at Norfolk about one hun
dred years ago
The Supreme Court, on appeal. af-
firmed the decision of the District
Court, rendered by Judge Saint
! George Tucker. the able jurist and
author. and that of Chief Justice
Marshall, sitting in review on circuit,
and said:
Il. That whatevSr may be the OK
emption of the public ship herself
and of her armament and munitions
OF war. the prize property which she
brings into our ports is liable to the
Jurisdiction of our courts for the pur-
pose OF examination and enquiry
and, If proper case be made out
for restitution TO those whose pos
session has been Invested by a VIC,
lauon of our neutrality"
The Third Point.
Regarding the third point in con-
troversy the court said:
RESPONDING further maintains thai
the Appam and her cargo can not be
Il proceeded against in these causes
because the title to the same vested In
the German government by reason OF
. capture at sea by n German war YES
sci from an enemy country, that tbs
Appam is lawful prize of war; en-.
titled to remain in the water of the
United States, neutral power. with.
out interference on the part of that
i.
only be enquired into and Invested
by the action of the prize court oil
their own country.
No claim that the Appam is a pub.
lie war vessel of the German empire
can be maintained under the facts
OF this case. Indeed. in the pleadings
the contention Is not made. and on
the contrary she is claimed to be a
prize OF war. which places her in an
entirely different category AS respects
title and ownership; under modern
authority, title does not become vest,
ed in the captor of the prize by mere
capture and not until lawful con-
domination Ia had by the proper court
OF the captor country. This is par
ticularly true where the prize is not
taken into the captor's country. In
The Nassau. Wall. $40. the Supreme
Court of the United States said:
1T Is the practice with civilized
nations when vessel is captured al
sea as a prize of war, to bring her
into some convenient port OF the gov
eminent OF the captor for adjudica-
ton. The title lis not transferred by
the mere fact OF capture, but 1t is
, the duty of the cantor 70 eend his