Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1918-03-22
Scizure Of the Dutch ShipS.


E.-Prcsident William Howard Taft,
who. by virtue of his experience as lawyer,
nudge and President of the United States,
should have ample knowledge of the sub
;cct contributed TO the Philadelphia
Ledger of yesterday an editorial on the
se;z,,re Of the Dutch merchant ships IN
v,rious ports by this country and Great
Britain. He upholds the legality of the
action and presents good grounds for hls
conclusions.
The question" writes the ex-Presi-
dent. of the night of the United States TO
seize the Dutch ships now In our ports
and pay full compensation for them is
nice one. 1t is asserted under what is CALI
cd the right of angary. This literally
means the right Of transport. II was a
right sncientlv exercised by belligerent
10 seize vessels Of neutrals for the trans
port of his troops and munitions \ gen
eral principle of international law IS that
neutral property in belligcrent territory
shares the same liability To seizure for
vsr purposes as property OF the cluzens
OF the country. The Justice of the applica-
ton of the principle to ships temporarily,
or 10 use Halls phrase 'passlngly, IN
the mort ofs belligeent has been question
ed But the weight OF authority among
text writers seems to be that such vessels
NAV be seized in cases Of military necessity
upon tender Of full compensation More
over. ships which have been III our ports
for six months or more, detained because
of their purpose TO carry cargoes OF gram
ultimately destined for our enemies, can
hardly be said to be passlngly' here They
arc doing no good to anyone now Why
should we not use them If we give full
compensation to their owners
Mr. Taft then cites the very interest
ing fact that the most modern instance
az the assertion Of this right before the
opcning of the present war was by Count
Bismarck. Prussias great Premier, dur
ing he Franco-PrusSian War OF ISIU-I.
He asserted II against Great Britain,
neutral The Prtlssians seized SIX British
colliers in the Seine. near Rouen, place
within German military jurisdiction, for
the purpose of scuttling them and OBJ
structing the passage of French g'inboats
on the Seine. Bismarck defended the
action as zone OF necessity, which even In
time of peace may render the employment
Of destruction Of foreign property adrnns-
sible under reservation of indemnItcatlon.
BE continued, Z take the opportunity OF
calling to mind that similar night In
time Of war has become peculiar lnstI-
tu,e OF law, the jus angarlae, which so high
an authority as Sir Robert Phlllimore de
fines thus: That belligerent Power de-
mands and makes use Of foreign ships,
even such as are not IN inland waters, but
IN ports and roadsteads within Its Iuris-
diction. and even oompels the crews to
transport troops, ammunition and lmple-
meuts OF warfare. England acquiesced in
the legality of the seizure on payment of
full compensation. This view, thug agreed
upon, IL sustained by Oppenheim, profes-
sor Of international law at Cambridge,
England; by Coleman Philipson, and in
deed BY most international iurists, inciud
ing the Germans. Dana and, Lawrence
vigorously dissent 1t Is also declared TO
be the law in the United States naval war
code"
To the protest Of DR. Loudon, Hollands
Minister OF Foreign Affairs, that the right
OF taking, while it may apply to q small
number of ships, does not apply to large
number, Mr. Taft makes adequate
reply. 1t Is certainly true be says,
that the night has never been applied SO
extensively as now proposed. 1t is hard to
see, however, why extent Of the Appliea-
ton of the principle should change the
rule The ships are within our Jurisdiction
and have been here for SIX months or more
because they do not comply with our Lave
full regulations of our foreign trade. We
did not induce their coming in such num-
bers They are here. Our right TO seize
them rests on the ir being within our ter
ritory. This makes them just as liable as
property of American citizens to seizure
for war purposes, If our military need for
them is great. Such need certainly exists
in view Of the critical condition Of our
transport and our imperative obligation TO
feed our soldiers and our allies abroad.
1t will be well, Of course, to secure the
vessels by agreement with Holland. This
we undoubtedly could do but for Ger
nanys Intervention and threat. Germany
has no Just right to complain Of Holland
for agreeing to the sale of vessels to us,
when by the modern right Of angary which
Bismarck asserted we could properly en-
force such sale"
1t is easy TO understand the rage Of
Germany over the proceeding futile