The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1922-10-18
NORWAY wins
CASE AGAINST
UNITED STATES
Hague T + i b u n q ]
Awards $4,000, 600
For Requisitioning
Ships During War

Ships During War
The Hague. Oct. IS (By the As
sociated Press. = Norway has
bee nawarded approximately .s12.-
! 100000 by the arbitration tribunal.
! which for several months has Been
considering the controversy be-
tween the United States and Nor
way involving claims growing out
| of the requisitioning Of Norwe-
gian vessels by the United states
during the war.
! The award was made known TO-
/! day. and the American arbitrator.
tChandler p Anderson. who did not
attend today's sitting, communj-
Gated to the secretary general Of
the tribunal and the agents of Nor
way and the United States his opin-
ion that the terms of submission
had been violated and that the
tribunal had exceeded its juris-
diction as outlined by the special
agreement Notice was served by
William G.. Dennis, tie American
government agent, that he reserr-
ed fer his government all the
rights arising out of the plain and
manifest departure of the award
from the terms Of submission and
from the essential error by
which it is invalidated
The grounds on which the
American arbitrator and agent
claimed the terms Of submission
had been violated Were not pre-
sented to the tribunal. but it was
said by those conversant with the
case that one of the principal rca-
sons was the alleged disregard of
the provisions Of The Hague con-
vention of 1907. requiring arbi-
traitors to state the reasons for each
award made. From the beginning
Of the present trial. it was SAID
that both sides to the arbitraf ton.
as well as the tribunal itself. agreed
to be bound by The Hague conven-
ton.
The present decision. covering A..
large printed pages does net give
the reasons for the award of each
claimant, but recites the reasons
for the justice of general award.
The awards Of each claimant are
given in "a fiat sum. incIudiag in-
terest at an unstated rate. The
method whereby the sums were ar
rived at is not specified.
Chief among the points of con-
'roversy throughout the tribunal
sitting was what was requisition-
ed and when. It was argued by
the United States. that the order is
sued by the United States shipping
board August. 1917. which was the
only .reouisition order ever issued
merely requisitioned ships then,
completed and materials for un-
completed vessels.
Norway. on the other hand.
claimed that the United States
reauisitioned not only ships and
materials. but also contracts, and
claimed compensation for their
marketable value. Moreover, Nor
way claimed that the requisition
order did not become effecti.e un-
til October G. 1917. at the conclu-
sion of the negotiations between
the United States and the special
Norwegian commission headed by
DR.. Fridtjof Nansen
Even concedirg that contracts
We're requisitioned. the United
States claimed their value shorla
be determined as of August 8. 1917.
and not after prices We're jugsled
upward by the alleged ,nanipuia-
tions Of Christopher Hannevig. q
Norwegian subject. who. the Amer
lean counsel claimed, speculated on
ship contracts and created dummy
corporations. even after the sequisi-
ton order was issued, through
which to sell and resell contracts.
advancing prices perceptibly with
each transaction and indulsing in
other alleged questionable tradings.
Some of the Hannevig corporations
in America have become bankrupt
since the war.
Although Hannevig does not
figure in the list of claimants. the
United States argued and Norway
admitted that he is largely interest
ed in virtually all the claims. The
award makes allowance for the
dubious" nature OF some acts Of
Hanncvis. but does not mention
to what extent.
The tribunal upheld Norways
contentious. both as regards con-
tracts requisitioned and the date
October 6. 1917. on which the
reQuiSitioring became effective. al
though the only reouisition order
cited was that OF August 5. 1917.
TuE DIOCESEAN