THE ALLANTON (Continuous Voyage)
Sir,—I venture to think that the letter which you print this morning from my friend Dr. Baty, with reference to the steamship Allanton, calls for a word of warning; unless, indeed, it is to be taken as merely expressing the private opinion of the writer as to what would be a desirable rule of law.
It would be disastrous if shipowners and insurers were to assume, that a neutral vessel, if destined for a neutral port, is necessarily safe from capture. Words at any rate capable of this construction may, no doubt, be quoted from one of Lord Stowell's judgments, now more than a century old; but many things have happened, notably the invention of railways, since the days of that great Judge. The United States cases, decided in the sixties (as Dr. Baty thinks, "on a demonstrably false analogy"), in which certain ships were held to be engaged in the carriage of contraband, although their destination was a neutral port, were substantially approved of by Great Britain. Their principle wast adopted by Italy, in the Doelwijk, in 1896, and was supported by Great Britain in the correspondence upon this subject which took place with Germany in 1900. It was endorsed, after prolonged discussion, by the Institut de Droit International in 1896.
(Unqualified Captors)
Among the objections raised by the British Government to the capture by the Russian ship Peterburg in the Red Sea, on July 13, 1904, of the P. and O. ss. Malacca, for carriage of contraband were (1) that the so-called contraband consisted of government ammunition for the use of the British fleet in Chinese waters; and (2) what was more serious, that the capturing vessel, which belonged to the Russian volunteer fleet, after issuing from the Black Sea under the commercial flag had subsequently, and without touching at any Russian port, brought up guns from her hold, and had proceeded to exercise belligerent rights under the Russian naval flag. In consequence of the protest of the British Government, and to close the incident, the Malacca was released at Algiers, after a purely formal examination, on July 27, and Russia agreed to instruct the officers of her volunteer fleet not to make any similar captures.
The question of the legitimacy of the transformation on the high seas into a ship-of-war of a vessel which has previously been sailing under the commercial flag was much discussed at The Hague Conference of 1907, but without result. Opinions were so much divided upon the point, that no mention of it is made in Convention No. vii. of that year, ratified by Great Britain on November 27, 1909, "as to the transformation of merchant vessels into ships-of-war." At the session of the Institut de Droit International held at Oxford in 1913, this question was discussed, and rules relating to it will be found in Section 2 of the Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime, the drafting of which occupied the whole of the session.
THE ALLANTON (Unqualified Captors)
Sir,—The indignation caused by the treatment of the Allanton is natural, and will almost certainly prove to be well founded; but Mr. Rae, in the letter which you print this morning, overstates a good case. He asks that, "whatever steps are taken for the release of the Malacca, equally strong steps should be taken for the release of the Allanton"; and he can see no difference between the cases of the two ships, except that the former is owned by a powerful company in the habit of carrying British mails, while the latter is his private property.
One would have supposed it to be notorious that the [163]facts which distinguish the one case from the other are, first, that the capture of the Malacca was effected by a vessel not entitled to exercise belligerent rights; and, secondly, that Great Britain is prepared to claim the incriminated cargo as belonging to the British Government. Capture by an unqualified cruiser is so sufficient a ground for a claim of restoration and compensation that, except perhaps as facilitating the retreat of Russia from a false position, it would seem, to say the least, superfluous to pray in aid any other reason for the cancellation of an act unlawful ab initio.
I have not noticed any statement as to the actual constitution of the prize Court concerned in the condemnation of the Allanton. Under Rule 54 of the Russian Naval Regulations of 1895, a "Port Prize Court" must, for a decree of confiscation, consist of six members, of whom three must be officials of the Ministries of Marine, Justice, and Foreign Affairs respectively. An "Admirals' Prize Court," for the same purpose, need consist of only four members, all of whom are naval officers.
(Note upon the Declaration of London)
The British delegates to The Hague Conference of 1907 were instructed that H.M. Government "are ready and willing for their part, in lieu of endeavouring to frame new and more satisfactory rules for the prevention of contraband trade in the future, to abandon the principle of contraband of war altogether, thus allowing the oversea trade in neutral vessels between belligerents on the one hand and neutrals on the other, to continue during war without any restriction," except with reference to blockades. This proposal, fortunately, was not accepted by the Conference, which was unable even to agree upon lists of contraband articles, and recommended that the question should be further considered by the Governments concerned, Parl. Paper, Miscell. No. 1 (1908), p. 194.
This task was accordingly among those undertaken at the Conference of Maritime Powers held in London in 1908-1909, which resulted in [164]a Declaration, Arts. 22-44 of which constituted a fairly complete code of the law of contraband. Reference has already been made, in comments upon letters comprised in previous sections, to this Declaration, the demerits and history of which are more fully dealt with in section 10, infra, pp. 196-207.
SECTION 6
Methods of Warfare as affecting Neutrals
(Mines)
On the views expressed in the first of the two letters which follow, as also in the writer's British Academy paper on Neutral Duties, as translated in the Marine Rundschau, see Professor von Martitz of Berlin, in the Transactions of the International Law Association, 1907. The Institut de Droit International has for some years past had under its consideration questions relating to mines, and has arrived at conclusions which will be found in its Annuaire, t. xxi. p. 330, t. xxii. p. 344, t xxiii. p. 429, t. xxiv. pp. 286, 301.
The topic has also been dealt with in The Hague Convention, No. viii. of 1907, ratified with a reservation, by Great Britain on November 27, 1907. By Art. 1 it is forbidden "(1) to lay unanchored automatic-contact mines, unless they are so constructed as to become harmless one hour at most after he who has laid them has lost control over them; (2) to lay anchored automatic-contact mines which do not become harmless as soon as they have broken loose from their moorings; (3) to employ torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark." By Art. 2, (which is, however, not accepted by France or Germany) it is forbidden "to lay automatic-contact mines off the coast and ports of an enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation."
Sir,—The question raised in your columns by Admiral do Horsey with reference to facts as to which we are as yet imperfectly informed, well illustrates the perpetually recurring conflict between belligerent and neutral interests. They are, of course, irreconcilable, and the rights of the respective parties can be defined only by way of compromise. It is beyond doubt that the theoretically absolute [165]right of neutral ships, whether public or private, to pursue their ordinary routes over the high sea in time of war, is limited by the right of the belligerents to fight on those seas a naval battle, the scene of which can be approached by such ships only at their proper risk and peril. In such a case the neutral has ample warning of the danger to which he would be exposed did he not alter his intended course. It would, however, be an entirely different affair if he should find himself implicated in belligerent war risks, of the existence of which it was impossible for him to be informed, while pursuing his lawful business in waters over which no nation pretends to exercise jurisdiction.
It is certain that no international usage sanctions the employment by one belligerent against the other of mines, or other secret contrivances, which would, without notice, render dangerous the navigation of the high seas. No belligerent has ever asserted a right to do anything of the kind; and it may be in the recollection of your readers that strong disapproval was expressed of a design, erroneously attributed to the United States a few years since, of effecting the blockade of certain Cuban ports by torpedoes, instead of by a cruising squadron. These, it was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of capture and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship and all on board.
It may be worth while to add, as bearing upon the question under discussion, that there is a tendency in expert opinion towards allowing the line between "territorial waters" and the "high seas" to be drawn at a considerably greater distance than the old measurement of three miles from the shore.
Sir,—Most authorities would, I think, agree with Admiral de Horsey that the line between "territorial waters" and "the high sea" is drawn by international law, if drawn by it anywhere, at a distance of three miles from low-water mark. In the first place, the ridiculously wide claims made, on behalf of certain States, by mediæval jurists were cut down by Grotius to so much water as can be controlled from the land. The Grotian formula was then worked out by Bynkershoek with reference to the range of cannon; and, finally, this somewhat variable test was before the end of the eighteenth century, as we may see from the judgments of Lord Stowell, superseded by the hard-and-fast rule of the three-mile limit, which has since received ample recognition in treaties, legislation, and judicial decisions.
The subordinate question, also touched upon by the Admiral, of the character to be attributed to bays, the entrance to which exceeds six miles in breadth, presents more difficulty than that relating to strictly coastal waters. I will only say that the Privy Council, in The Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Telegraph Co. (L.R. 2 App. Ca. 394), carefully avoided giving an opinion as to the international law applicable to such bays, but decided the case before them, which had arisen with reference to the Bay of Conception, in Newfoundland, on the narrow ground that, as a British Court, they were bound by certain assertions of jurisdiction made in British Acts of Parliament.
The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate in consequence of the increased range of modern cannon, but no other can be substituted for it without express agreement of the Powers. One can hardly admit the view which has been maintained, e.g. by Professor de Martens, that the distance shifts automatically in accord[167]ance with improvements in artillery. The whole matter might well be included among the questions relating to the rights and duties of neutrals, for the consideration of which by a conference, to be called at an early date, a wish was recorded by The Hague Conference, of 1899.
In the meantime it may be worth while to call attention to the view of the subject taken by a specially qualified and representative body of international experts. The Institut de Droit International, after discussions and enquiries which had lasted for several years, adopted, at their Paris meeting in 1894, the following resolutions, as a statement of what, in the opinion of the Institut, would be reasonable rules with reference to territorial waters (I cite only those bearing upon the extent of such waters):—
"Art. 2.—La mer territoriale s'étend à six milles marins (60 au degré de latitude) de la laisse de basse marée sur tout l'étendue des côtes. Art. 3.—Pour les baies, la mer territoriale suit les sinuosités de la côte, sauf qu'elle mesurée à partir d'une ligne droite tirée en travers de la baie, dans la partie la plus rapprochée de l'ouverture vers la mer, où l'écart entre les deux côtes de la baie est de douze milles marins de largeur, à moins qu'un usage continu et séculaire n'ait consacré une largeur plus grande. Art. 4.—En cas de guerre, l'état riverain neutre a le droit de fixer, par la déclaration de neutralité, ou par notification spéciale, sa zone neutre au dela de six milles, jusqu'à portée du canon des côtes. Art. 5.—Tous les navires sans distinction ont le droit de passage inoffensif par la mer territoriale, sauf le droit des belligérants de règlementer et, dans un but de défense, de barrer le passage dans la dite mer pour tout navire, et sauf le droit de neutres de règlementer le passage dans la dite mer pour les navires de guerre de toutes nationalités." (Annuaire de l'Institut, t. xiii. p. 329).
A French decree, of October 18, 1912, accordingly extends, when France is neutral, her territorial waters to a distance of six miles (11 kilom.) from low-water mark.[168]
(Cable-cutting)
With the letters which follow, compare the article by the present writer on "Les cables sous-marins en temps de guerre," in the Journal de Droit International Privé, 1898, p. 648.
The topic of cable-cutting, as to which the Institut de Droit International arrived in 1879 at the conclusions set out in the first of these letters, was again taken into consideration by the Institut in 1902: see the Annuaire for that year, pp. 301-332.
The Hague Convention; No. iv. of 1907, provides, in Art. 54, that "submarine cables connecting occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be destroyed or seized, unless in case of absolute necessity. They must be restored, and compensation must be arranged for them at the peace."
Convention No. v., by Art. 3, forbids belligerents (1) to install on neutral territory a radio-telegraphic station, or any other apparatus, for communicating with their land or sea forces; (2) to employ such apparatus, established by them there before the war, for purely military purposes. By Art. 5, a neutral Power is bound to permit nothing of the sort.
Sir,—The possibility of giving some legal protection to submarine cables has been carefully considered by the Institut de Droit International. A committee was appointed in 1878 to consider the subject, and the presentation of its report to the meeting at Brussels in 1879 was followed by an interesting discussion (see the Annuaire de l'Institut, 1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted by the Institut were as follows:—
"1. It would be very useful if the various States would come to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury to, submarine cables in the high seas is an offence under the Law of Nations, and to fix precisely the wrongful character of the acts, and the appropriate penalties. With reference to the last-mentioned point, the degree of uniformity attainable must depend on the amount of difference between systems of criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders, or those presumed to be such, might be given to the public vessels of all nations, under conditions regulated by treaties, but the right to try them should be reserved to the national Courts of the vessel arrested.
"2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral territories [169]is inviolable. It is desirable that, when telegraphic communication must be interrupted in consequence of war, a belligerent should confine himself to such measures as are absolutely necessary to prevent the cable from being used, and that such measures should be discontinued, or that any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the cessation of hostilities may permit."
SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
Sir,—I venture to think that the question which has been raised as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so insoluble as most of the allusions to it might lead one to suppose. It is true that no light is thrown upon it by the Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to time of peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf of Great Britain, only with an express reservation to that effect. Nor are we helped by the case to which attention was called in your columns some time since by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was doubtless to the International (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is irrelevant to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but, though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by certain well-established principles of international law, which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is no cut-and-dried system but a body of rules founded upon, and moving with, the public opinion of nations.
That branch of international law which deals with the relations of neutrals and belligerents is, of course, a compromise between what Grotius calls the "belli rigor" and the "commerciorum libertas." The terms of the compromise, originally suggested partly by equity, partly by national interest, have been varied and re-defined, from time to time, with reference to the same considerations. It is perhaps reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant [170]weight should have been given to the requirements of belligerents, engaged possibly in a life-and-death struggle. "Ius commerciorum æquum est," says Gentili; "at hoc æquius, tuendæ salutis." There is accordingly no doubt that in land warfare a belligerent may not only interrupt communications by road, railway, post, or telegraph without giving any ground of complaint to neutrals who may be thereby inconvenienced, but may also lay hands on such neutral property—shipping, railway carriages, or telegraphic plant—as may be essential to the conduct of his operations, making use of and even destroying it, subject only to a duty to compensate the owners. This he does in pursuance of the well-known "droit d'angarie," an extreme application of which occurred in 1871, when certain British colliers were sunk in the Seine by the Prussians in order to prevent the passage of French gunboats up the river. Count Bismarck undertook that the owners of the ships should be indemnified, and Lord Granville did not press for anything further. Such action, if it took place outside of belligerent territory, would not be tolerated for a moment.
The application of these principles to the case of submarine cables would appear to be, to a certain point at any rate, perfectly clear. Telegraphic communication with the outside world may well be as important to a State engaged in warfare as similar means of communication between one point and another within its own territory. Just as an invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act within the enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so far from shore as he could reasonably place a blockading squadron. It may be objected that a belligerent has no right to prevent the access of neutral ships to unblockaded portions of the enemy's coast on the ground that by carrying diplomatic agents or despatches they are keeping up the communications of his enemy with neutral Governments. But this indulgence rests on the presumption that such [171]official communications are "innocent," a presumption obviously inapplicable to telegraphic messages indiscriminately received in the course of business. It would seem, therefore, to be as reasonable as it is in accordance with analogy, that a belligerent should be allowed, within the territorial waters of his enemy, to cut a cable, even though it may be neutral property, of which the terminus ad quem is enemy territory, subject only to a liability to indemnify the neutral owners.
The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of a cable connecting enemy with neutral territory receives no countenance from international law. Still less permissible would be the cutting of a cable connecting two neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which, by previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may be useful to the enemy.
SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR
Sir,—Will you allow me to refer in a few words to the interesting letters upon the subject of submarine cables which have been addressed to you by Mr. Parsoné and Mr. Charles Bright? In asserting that "the question as to the legitimacy of cable-cutting is covered by no precedent," I had no intention of denying that belligerent interference with cables had ever occurred. International precedents are made by diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with reference to facts, not by those facts themselves. To the best of my belief no case of cable-cutting has ever been made matter of diplomatic representation, and I understand Mr. Parsoné to admit that no claim in respect of damage to cables was presented to the mixed Commission appointed under the Convention of 1883 between Great Britain and Chile.[172]
In the course of his able address upon "Belligerents and Neutrals," reported in your issue of this morning, I observe that Mr. Macdonell suggests that the Institut de Droit International might usefully study the question of cables in time of war. It may, therefore, be well to state that this service hat already been rendered. The Institut, at its Paris meeting in 1878, appointed a committee, of which M. Renault was chairman, to consider the whole subject of the protection of cables, both in peace and in war; and at its Brussels meeting, in 1879, carefully discussed the exhaustive report of its committee and voted certain "conclusions," notably the following:—
"Le câble télégraphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires neutres est inviolable.
"Il est à désirer, quand les communications télégraphiques doivent cesser par suite de l'état de guerre, que l'on se borne aux mesures strictement nécessaires pour empêcher l'usage du cable, et qu'il soit mis fin à ces mesures, ou que l'on en répare les consequences, aussitôt que le permettra la cessation des hostilités."
It was in no small measure due to the initiative of the Institut that diplomatic conferences were held at Paris, which in 1882 produced a draft convention for the protection of cables, not restricted in its operation to time of peace; and in 1884 the actual convention, which is so restricted.
It may not be generally known that in 1864, before the difficulties of the subject were thoroughly appreciated, a convention was signed, though it never became operative, by which Brazil, Hayti, Italy, and Portugal undertook to recognise the "neutrality" in time of war of a cable to be laid by one Balestrini. So, in 1869, the United States were desirous of concluding a general convention which should assimilate the destruction of cables in the high seas to piracy, and should continue to be in force in time of war. The Brussels conference of 1874 avoided any mention of "câbles sous-marins."
The moral of all that has been written upon this subject is obviously that drawn by Mr. Charles Bright—viz. "the [173]urgent necessity of a system of cables connecting the British Empire by direct and independent means—i.e. without touching on foreign soil."
SECTION 7
Destruction of Neutral Prizes
A British ship, the Knight Commander, bound from New York to Yokohama and Kobe, was stopped on July 23, 1904, by a Russian cruiser, and as her cargo consisted largely of railway material, was considered to be engaged in carriage of contraband. Her crew and papers were taken on board the cruiser, and she was sent to the bottom by fire from its guns. The reasons officially given for this proceeding were that: "The proximity of the enemy's port, the lack of coal on board the vessel to enable her to be taken into a Russian port, and the impossibility of supplying her with coal from one of the Russian cruisers, owing to the high seas running at the time, obliged the commander of the Russian cruiser to sink her."
The Russian Regulations as to Naval Prize, Art. 21, allowed a commander "in exceptional cases, when the preservation of a captured vessel appears impossible on account of her bad condition or entire worthlessness, the danger of her recapture by the enemy, or the great distance or blockade of ports, or else on account of danger threatening the ship which has made the capture, or the success of her operations," to burn or sink the prize.
The Japanese Regulations, Art. 91, were to the same effect in cases where the prize (1) cannot be navigated owing to her being unseaworthy, or to dangerous seas; (2) is likely to be recaptured by the enemy; (3) cannot be navigated without depriving the ship-of-war of officers and men required for her own safety.
The case of the Knight Commander was the subject of comment, on the 27th of the same month, in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords, Lord Lansdowne spoke of what had occurred as "a very serious breach of international law," "an outrage," against which it had been considered "a duty to lodge a strong protest." In the House of Commons, Mr. Balfour described it as "entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised nations." Similar language was used in Parliament on August 10, when Mr. Gibson Bowles alluded to my letter of the 6th, in a way which gave occasion for that of the 14th.[174]
The Knight Commander was condemned by the Prize Court at Vladivostok on August 16, 1904, and the sentence was confirmed on December 5, 1905, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, which found it "impossible to agree that the destruction of a neutral vessel is contrary to the principles of international law." The Russian Government remained firm on the point, and in 1908 declined to submit the case to arbitration.
The Institut de Droit International in its Code des Prises maritimes, voted in 1887, Art. 50 (not, be it observed, professing to state the law as it is, but as it should be), had taken a view in accordance with that maintained by the British Government (Annuaire for 1888, t. ix. p. 228; cf. ib. pp. 200, 201). (The Manuel des lois de la guerre maritime, voted at Oxford in 1913, dealing exclusively with "les rapports entre les belligérants," does not deal with the topic in question.) It was, however, the opinion of the present writer, as will appear from the following letters, that no rule of international law, by which the sinking of even neutral prizes was absolutely prohibited, could be shown to exist. He had previously touched upon this question in his evidence before the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &c., in Time of War, on November, 4, 1903, and returned to it later in his paper upon "The Duties of Neutrals," read to the British Academy on April 12, 1905, Transactions, ii. p. 66. It was reproduced in French, German, Belgian, and Spanish periodicals, and was cited in the judgment of the St. Petersburg Court of Appeal in the case of the Knight Commander.
The subsequent history of the question, and, in particular, of the rules suggested in Arts. 48-54 of the unratified Declaration of London, may be claimed in favour of the correctness of the opinion maintained in the letters.
Sir,—The neutral Powers have serious ground of complaint as to the mode in which Russia is conducting operations at sea. It may, however, be doubted whether public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be capable of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which are just now attracting attention. Putting aside for the moment questions arising out of the Straits Convention of 1856, as belonging to a somewhat different order of ideas, we may take it that the topics most needing careful consideration relate to removal of contraband from the ship that is carrying it without taking her in for adjudication; [175]interference with mail steamers and their mail bags; perversely wrong decisions of Prize Courts; confiscation of ships as well as of their contraband cargo; destruction of prizes at sea; the list of contraband. Of these topics, the two last mentioned are probably the most important, and on each of these I will ask you to allow me to say a few words.
1. There is no doubt that by the Russian regulations of 1895, Art. 21; and instructions of 1901, Art. 40, officers are empowered to destroy their prizes at sea, no distinction being drawn between neutral and enemy property, under such exceptional circumstances as the bad condition or small value of the prize, risk of recapture, distance from a Russian port, danger to the Imperial cruiser or to the success of her operations. The instructions of 1901, it may be added, explain that an officer "incurs no responsibility whatever" for so acting if the captured vessel is really liable to confiscation and the special circumstances imperatively demand her destruction. It is fair to say that not dissimilar, though less stringent, instructions were issued by France in 1870 and by the United States in 1898; also that, although the French instructions expressly contemplate "l'établissement des indemnités à attribuer aux neutres," a French prize Court in 1870 refused compensation to neutral owners for the loss of their property on board of enemy ships burnt at sea.
The question, however, remains whether such regulations are in accordance with the rules of international law. The statement of these rules by Lord Stowell, who speaks of them as "clear in principle and established in practice," may, I think, be summarised as follows: An enemy's ship, after her crew has been placed in safety, may be destroyed. Where there is any ground for believing that the ship, or any part of her cargo, is neutral property, such action is justifiable only in cases of "the gravest importance to the captor's own State," after securing the ship's papers and subject to [176]the right of neutral owners to receive fall compensation (Actaeon, 2 Dods. 48; Felicity, ib. 381; substantially followed by Dr. Lushington in the Leucade, Spinks, 221). It is not the case, as is alleged by the Novoe Vremya, that any British regulations "contain the same provisions as the Russian" on this subject. On the contrary, the Admiralty Manual of 1888 allows destruction of enemy vessels only; and goes so far in the direction of liberality as to order the release, without ransom, of a neutral prize which either from its condition, or from lack of a prize crew, cannot be sent in for adjudication. The Japanese instructions of 1894 permit the destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art. 50 of the carefully debated "Code des prises" of the Institut de Droit International is to the same effect. It may be worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M. de Martens, in his book on international law, published some twenty years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her ports from the scenes of naval operations often obliges Russia to sink her prizes, so that "ce qui les lois maritimes de tous les états considèrent comme un moyen auquel il n'y a lieu de recourir qu'à la dernière extrémité, se transformera nécessairement pour nous en règle normale," foresaw that "cette mesure d'un caractère général soulévera indubitablement contre notre pays un mécontentement universel."
2. A far more important question is, I venture to think, raised by the Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it does, into the category of "absolutely contraband" articles things such as provisions and coal, to which a contraband character, in any sense of the term, has usually been denied on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States have admitted them into the category of "conditional" contraband, only when shown to be suitable and destined for the armed forces of the enemy, or for the relief of a place besieged. Still more unwarrantable is the Russian claim to interfere with the trade in raw cotton. Her prohibition of [177]this trade is wholly unprecedented, for the treatment of cotton during the American Civil War will be found on examination to have no bearing on the question under consideration. I touch to-day upon this large subject only to express a hope that our Government, in concert, if possible, with other neutral Governments, has communicated to that of Russia, with reference to its list of prohibited articles, a protest in language as unmistakable as that employed by our Foreign Office in 1885; "I regret to have to inform you, M. l'Ambassadeur," wrote Lord Granville, "that Her Majesty's Government feel compelled to take exception to the proposed measure, as they cannot admit that, consistently with the law and practice of nations, and with the rights of neutrals, provisions in general can be treated as contraband of war." A timely warning that a claim is inadmissible is surely preferable to waiting till bad feeling has been aroused by the concrete application of an objectionable doctrine.
Sir,—From this hilltop I observe that, in the debate of Thursday last, Mr. Gibson Bowles, alluding to a letter of mine which appeared in your issue of August 6, complained that I "had not given the proper reference" to Lord Stowell's judgments. Mr. Bowles seems to be unaware that in referring to a decided case the page mentioned is, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that on which the report of the case commences. I may perhaps also be allowed to say that he, in my opinion, misapprehends the effect of the passage quoted by him from the Felicity, which decides only that, whatever may be the justification for the destruction of a neutral prize, the neutral owner is [178]entitled, as against the captor, to full compensation for the loss thereby sustained.
Sir,—Mr. Gibson Bowles has, I find, addressed to you a letter in which he attempts to controvert two statements of mine by the simple expedient of omitting essential portions of each of them.
1. Mr. Bowles having revealed himself as unaware that the mode in which I had cited a group of cases upon destruction of prizes was the correct mode, I thought it well to provide him with the rudimentary information that, "in referring to a decided case, the page, mentioned is, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, invariably that on which the report of the case commences." He replies that he has found appended to a citation of a passage in a judgment the page in which this passage occurs. May I refer him, for an explanation of this phenomenon, to the words (now italicised) omitted in his quotation of my statement? It is, of course, common enough, when the reference is obviously not to the case as a whole but to an extract from it, thus to give a clue to the extract, the formula then employed being frequently "at page so-and-so."
2. I had summarised the effect, as I conceive it, of the group of cases above mentioned in the following terms: "Such action is justifiable only in cases of the gravest importance to the captor's own State, after securing the ship's papers, and subject to the right of the neutral owners to receive full compensation." Here, again, while purporting to quote me, Mr. Bowles omits the all-important words now italicised. I am, however, maltreated in good company. Mr. Bowles represents Lord Stowell as holding that destruction of neutral property cannot be justified, even in cases of the gravest [179]importance to the captor's own State. What Lord Stowell actually says, in the very passage quoted by Mr. Bowles, is that "to the neutral can only be justified, under any such circumstances, by a full restitution in value." I would, suggest that Mr. Bowles should find an opportunity for reading in extenso the reports of the Actaeon (2 Dods. 48), and the Felicity (ib. 881), as also for re-reading the passage which occurs at p. 386 of the latter case, before venturing further into the somewhat intricate technicalities of prize law.
Sir,—In your St. Petersburg correspondence of yesterday I see that some reference is made to what I have had occasion to say from time to time upon the vexed question of the sinking of neutral vessels, and your Correspondent thinks it "would be decidedly interesting" to know whether I have really changed my opinion on the subject. Perhaps, therefore, I may be allowed to state that my opinion on the subject has suffered no change, and may be summarised as follows:—
1. There is no established rule of international law which absolutely forbids, under any circumstances, the sinking of a neutral prize. A consensus gentium to this effect will hardly be alleged by those who are aware that such sinking is permitted by the most recent prize regulations of France, Russia, Japan, and the United States.
2. It is much to be desired that the practice should be, by future international agreement, absolutely forbidden—- that the lenity of British practice in this respect should become internationally obligatory.
3. In the meantime, to adopt the language of the French instructions, "On ne doit user de ce droit de destruction [180]qu'avec plus la grande réserve"; and it may well be that any given set of instructions (e.g. the Russian) leaves on this point so large a discretion to commanders of cruisers as to constitute an intolerable grievance.
4. In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved to be good prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for his loss. In the language of Lord Stowell:—
"The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious act towards his own Government; but still the person to whom the property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor has by the act of destruction conferred a benefit upon the public, he must look to his own Government for his indemnity."
It may be worth while to add that the published statements on the subject for which I am responsible are contained in the Admiralty Manual of Prize Law of 1888 (where section 808 sets out the lenient British instructions to commanders, without any implication that instructions of a severer kind would have been inconsistent with international law); in letters which appeared in your columns on August 6, 17, and 30, 1904; and in a paper on "Neutral Duties in a Maritime War, as illustrated by recent events," read before the British Academy in April last, a French translation of which is in circulation on the Continent.
The Russian circular of April 3, 1906, inviting the Powers to a second Peace Conference, included amongst the topics for discussion: "Destruction par force majeure des bâtiments de commerce neutres arrêtés comme prises," and the British delegates were instructed to urge the acceptance of what their Government had maintained to be the existing rule on the subject. The Conference of 1907 declined, however, to define existing law, holding that its business was solely to consider what should be the law in future. After long discussions, in the course of which frequent reference was made to views expressed by the present writer (see Actes et Documents, t. iii. pp. 991-993, 1010, 1016, 1018, 1048, 1171), the Conference failed to arrive at any conclusion as to the desirability of prohibiting the destruction of neutral prizes, and confined itself to the expression of a wish (vœu) that this, and other un[181]settled points in the law of naval warfare, should be dealt with by a subsequent Conference.
This question was, accordingly, one of those submitted to a Conference of ten maritime Powers, which was convoked by Great Britain in 1908, for reasons upon which something will be said in the next section.
The question of sinking was fully debated in this Conference, with the assistance of memoranda, in which the several Powers represented explained their divergent views upon it, and of reports prepared by committees specially appointed for the purpose. It soon became apparent that the British proposal for an absolute prohibition of the destruction of neutral prizes had no chance of being accepted; while, on the other hand, it was generally agreed that the practice is permissible only in exceptional cases. (See Parl. Paper, Miscell. No. 5 (1909), pp. 2-63, 99-102, 120, 189, 205, 215, 223, 248, 268-278, 323, 365.) Arts. 48-54 of the Declaration, signed by the delegates to the Conference on February 26, 1909, but not ratified by Great Britain, related to this question. After laying down, in Art. 48, the general principle that "a neutral prize cannot be destroyed by the captor, but should be taken into such port as is proper for the legal decision of the rightfulness of the capture" the Declaration proceeded, in Art. 49, to qualify this principle by providing that "exceptionally, a neutral vessel captured by a belligerent warship, which would be liable to confiscation, may be destroyed, if obedience to Art. 48 might compromise the safety of the warship, or the success of the operations in which she is actually engaged."
SECTION 8
An International Prize Court
The forecast, incidentally attempted in the following letters, of the general results likely to be arrived at by the second Peace Conference, has been justified by the event. As much may be claimed for the views maintained upon the topic with which these letters were more specifically concerned. Instead of letting loose the judges of the proposed International prize Court to "make law," in accordance with what might happen to be their notions of "the general principles of justice and equity," a serious attempt has been made to supply them with a Code of the law which they would be expected to administer.
Some account will be given at the end of this section of the movement towards the establishment of an International Court of Appeal in oases of prize.[182]
Sir—The idea suggested by the question addressed on February 19 to the Government by Mr. A. Herbert—viz. that the appeal in prize cases should lie, not to a Court belonging to the belligerent from whose Court of first instance the appeal is brought, but to an international tribunal, has a plausible appearance of fairness, but involves many preliminary questions which must not be lost sight of.
Prize Courts are, at present, Courts of enquiry, to which a belligerent Government entrusts the duty of ascertaining whether the captures made by its officers have been properly made, according to the views of international law entertained by that Government. There exists, no doubt, among Continental jurists, a considerable body of opinion in favour of giving to Courts of Appeal, at any rate, in prize cases a wholly different character. This opinion found its expression in Arts. 100-109 of the Code des Prises maritimes, finally adopted at its Heidelberg meeting, in 1887, by the Institut de Droit International. Art. 100 runs as follows:—