THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1914. SEA PRIZES AND CONTRABAND

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume IV, Issue 203, 12 August 1914, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 1914. SEA PRIZES AND CONTRABAND

Fbom information that has become available since writing a few days back on the terms of the Declaration of London, there is now no doubt in our mind but that it was rejected by the British House of Lords and is therefore inoperative so far as Britain is concerned, and is in ah probability a dead-letter among all the nations that subscribed to it. The Prize Court established by the Hague Convention, however, still survives, and its decisions would no doubt be greatly guided by precedents so far as applicable. Generally speaking, it may be taken that “enemy” property at sea is liable to capture and confiscation whenever found whether on the high seas or in enemy water. With regard to neutral ships the principle is generally, accepted that; a neutral prize must not be destroyed. Should, however, some urgent necessity compel a captor to destroy it, then compensation must, in any event, be paid to the neutral owner for the loss of his vessel. The i Hague conference laid it down that a merchant ship cannot have the; rights and duties of a man-of-war, j unless it is placed under the direct | authority, and immediate control of officers on cither the active or re-1 serve naval list of the nation to which: it belongs. Further, converted mer-chant-ships have to bear the external marks which usually distinguish warships of their nationality—a somewhat vague rule, leaving a good deal of latitude for evasion. The commander must also be in the service of the State and duly commissioned, and his name must b'' c~i the list of officers of the fighung fleet and the crew must be subject to naval discipline. A eerw. reed mer-chant-ship must observe aulcj of war, and the Power to which she belongs must sue”! as possible announce the conversion. But, while' the Hague' Conference rules effect I some sort of distinction between the armed merchantman and the acknow-1 ledged privateer of old, the formal recognition of the right to convert merchantmen into vessels of war is to some extent a derogation from the provisions of the Declaration of Paris. As was mentioned in a previous article, the Declaration of London excited a very great amount of controversy, and as lately as last May the subject was revived in the British Parliament. At that time one of, the members moved the following re-1 solution: —“That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that His Majesty’s Government should negotiate with the other leading maritime Powers with a view to obtaining such a revision of the. laws of naval war-1 fare as would secure immunity to all private property except in the case of ships carrying materials for war or attempting to violate a blockade.” He submitted that this was an opportune moment for discussing afresh, this very important question. There was shortly to be another conference I at The Hague, and there had been in all countries a very remarkable: development of public opinion upon ( the question. Everywhere Chambers of Commerce were passing resolutions asking" that the right of capture should be abolished. In response to this resolution and representation Sir Edward Grey is reported to have said - ‘‘The Government would not con-| sider or accept any motion which, would commit them to the abolition: of the right of blockade ; that they; would certainly reserve. What I ap-j prehend would happen unless any ‘ rule of immunity of private property: at sea were very carefully drafted, I would be something of this kind, to; give one instance: War has broken; out. between two belligerent Powers, ■ each with considerable navies, each: having hound themselves in the time ■ of peace to respect immunity of private property and ships in time of. war. A merchant vessel belonging i to one of them, equipped with wire- ; less telegraphy, might possibly, either from design, or it may even be by accident, come among the fleet of the enemy. The enemy, seeing a merchant vessel belonging to the belligerent nation, and with wireless telegraphy, would certainly either j seize the ship or at least confiscate its : wireless telegraphy. It would beirnpossible to have a condition of things ’ in which, with two nations at war, ! the vessels of each of those nations, equipped with wireless telegraphy, could be able to move freely among the fleet of the other, sending in- 1 formation back as to its position. I Suppose the nation, to protect itself, seizes the ship or confiscates its wire- 1 less telegraphy, what is to prevent , the other nations from saying, ‘AI-, ready the rule of immunity of cap-; ture at sea has been violated, and i having been violated, in the first in- 1 stance by the other party, it did not intend itself to observe it.’ You 1 must have some careful rule to guard against things of that kind.” The questions of contraband and of interference with merchant ships were also macle the subject of comment by Sir Edward Grey, as likewise was the subject of mine-laying, all of them being admittedly questions on which it would be well that some definite international understanding should be established. In the end, however, he said that it was impossible for the Government to accept any definite resolution which would in any way hamper the free discussion of the question, which he stated was to be again brought before the Hague Conference at its next meeting. Much time and thought would require to be given to consideration of the lines on which negotiations should then proceed, and he indicated that probably no thing would be heard of the subject in the House for at least another year. In the meantime the belligerents seem fairlv free to pursue their own sweet will, subject only to the restraint which contemplation of the Hague Prize Court and the prospect of having to pay compensation may impose. It looks, however, as if there would very t shortly be but little neutral shipping upon all the waters of the earth.