Evening star., 1939-11-05
Checkmotinq the Nuzis

Checkmoting the Nozis
Norway, by her prompt action in
liberating the City of Flint when
her Nazi captors violated Norwegian
neutrality by anchoring at Hauge-
sund against the orders Of Norwegian
authorities, was complying strictly
with rules of international law which
had received scant consideration
when the vessel was in the Russian
port of Murmansk.
Norway was one of the signers Of
The Hague convention which pre-
scribed rules governing prizes Of
war In neutral harbors. Article 81 Of
that convention permitted prize crews
to take such ship into a neutral
port because of unseaworthiness
stress of weather, or lack of fuel or
provisions, but at the same time it
required that the ship be taken out
Immediately when the conditions
under which it entered the port had
ceased to exist, under penalty of re-
lease of the captured vessel and in
ternment of the prize crew.
All the evidence contained in the
official report transmitted by the
American Minister in Norway, Mrs. J.
Borden Hartman, and in news dis
patches is that the German COM
mander requested permission to an
chor at Haugesund, where the City
of Flint was under the watchful eye
of British warships, on the excuse
that a member of the Flint's Ameri-
can crew was i'll and it was desired
to deliver him to the American con-
sui.
Norwegian authorities sent a doctor
aboard to determine the extent Of
the mans injury. He was found not
to be injured sufficiently to justify
anchoring the ship in Norwegian
waters, but the German commander
anchored anyway, whereupon the
Norwegians properly charged viola
tion Of international law, interned
the prize crew and set the ship free.
Its American crew then Immediately
sailed it to Bergen.
Germany has protested to Norway
against this strict compliance with
the treaty-of which Germany is also
a signatory-on the dubious ground
that the German commander, in re-
sponse to President Roosevelt's ap-
peal for protection of the Americans
aboard, was performing a human
itarian act Berlin circles, which were
confident that the Flint would reach
a German port safely, hint ominously
at retaliation and possible claim
for damages against the Oslo govern
ment. From the available evidence,
however, it seems clear that Norway's
action did not reflect pro-American
bias, but purely self-interested pur-
pose to remain absolutely neutral, re-
gardless of which belligerent might
be affected thereby.
Norway's performance is in marked
contrast with the vacillating conduct
of the Russian government, which
first interned the prize crew at Muir
mansk, then released the Germans
and finally ordered them to take the
ship out of the port after the Amer
ican Government had protested
vehemently against the questionable
tactics of the Germans in taking the
ship to northern Russia.
Just what rule of international law
Russia was operating under is not
clear. The nature of its action ap-
peared to bring it within the mean
ing Of Article 81 of The Hague con-
vention. But apparently Russia was
not acting under The Hague conven-
ton at all, for Article 23-allowing
prizes to enter neutral ports for
sequestration pending the decision of
prize court-apparently would have
enabled Russia to keep the Flint at
Murmansk for Germany indefinitely.
Why Russia, If she was desirous of
aiding Germany, as appears to have
been the case, did not seek to avail
herself of Section % remains one OF
the mysteries of the City Of Flint in
cident.