Year: 1877

Twiss On Our Supreme Court.


In our letter from Antwerp, narrating the
proceedings Of the International Congress
for the reform and codifcation of the law OF
nations, considerable space is given to a
vigorous assault made by Sir Travers Twiss
on decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United. States. DR.. Twiss Che is better
known by this designation than as Sir
Travers) is the author of book on inter-
national law and was formerly, we believe,
professor in the University of Oxford. When
a jurist Of his pretensions assails the Su-
preme Court of the United States on an oc-
casion so conspicuous the subject is of suf-
fcient interest to publicists on this side of
the Atlantic to deserve the space given to it
in the letter of our Antwerp correspondent.


The decision thus impugned in an inter-
national assembly consisting of experts in
the law of nations is that rendered by our
Supreme Court in the Springbok case,
which, says DR.. Twiss, ''has taken all the
jurists of Europe by surprise, and will
impose on neutral trade more burden
some restrictions than they have ever
been subjected to before" Readers
will recollect that the Springbok was
British vessel captured during the
war on voyage from London to Nassau by
the Sonoma, condemned by the United
States District Court of New York. both ship
and cargo, and when the case was carried up
to the Supreme Court the ship was released
but the condemnation of the cargo affirmed.


Dr. Twiss maintains that this decision
nullifies one Of the articles of the we'll
known Declaration of Paris. This objection
is futile and irrelevant. The United States
was never party to the Declaration of Paris,
and our prize courts can take no cognizance
Of it. In the absence Of treaty or act
OF Congress they are bound to administer
the rules of international law as they find
them laid down by competent authorities.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court at
least the decision objected to is in accord
ance with the principles of international
law as laid down and understood by jurists
previous to the Declaration of Paris.


DR.. Twiss contends that as the SPRING
bok's papers showed that Nassau, British
port, was her destination, it was an intol-
erable interference with the rights OF neu-
trail commerce to arrest and condemn her
He admits that if when the Springbok
sailed from London her destination
had been one of the Confederate
ports war vessel of the United
States might have legally captured
her on the high seas and that she would
have been lawful prize in accordance with
the decisions of the English admiralty
courts. But as she was sailing for Nassau,
and not for Confederate port, he thinks it
was an outrage which no court should have
sanctioned. We are unable to see why the
doctrine of continuous voyages" should
be different in relation to blockades from
what it is in relation to contraband Of war.
But as regards contraband of war it is cleaH
that belligerent would have no power Of
selt-protection if it was obliged to accept a
fictitious or fraudulent destination as the
real one. If the Springbok had sailed
from London with cargo of muskets
and ammunition, intended to be trans
shipped at Nassau for the Confederate
States, the right of the United States to cap
ture her before she reached Nassau would
have been incontestable, provided there was
good evidence that her contraband cargo
was meant for the rebels. The fiction that
the cargo was intended merely for Nassau,
however strongly attested by the ships
papers, could not change the substance OF
the offence and O prize court is bound to
brush away delusive subterfuges and de-
eide on the substantial facts. This being
incontrovertible law, as laid down by the
authorities, common sense fails to see that
q different principle should be applied to
attempts to violate legal blockade.