Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 26 January 1911, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1911. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.

ITS SALIENT POINTS. IN view of the prominence being given to the protests a gains)fc the ratification of the Declaration of London, defining contraband of war, an -amplification of an article on the subject published ion December 15th may prove of interest. J.' he Declaration, "which is now bulking so largely in the Home cables, was signed in February, 1909, by delegates representing Great Britain and other Powers sub a. conference which, was held ill London; but, as our readers' iare aware, it still awaits ratification by Parliament. Perhaps the most striking! article which has just appeared on. the subject is tihat 'by Mr. F. Leverton Harris, M.P., in the November issue of the "National Review," and that ianticle it is proposed to summarise "briefly.

iMr. Harris calls attention to the fact that the Declaration is the natural outcome of the Second Peace Conference which mat at tihe Hague in 1907 and drew up "in annexe No. 12 to its final report the terms for the constitution .and procedure of aoi International Court of Appeal to deal with, prize matters, and act as arbiter in those caser> where the decisions given in the national prize- courts if the signatory Powers had failed to give satisfaction." In this tribunal judges amd deputyjudges d.vawn from such countries as ■Paraguay, Chili, .Siaan, Servia, or Guatemala will sit along with representative 0 of more important countries. But, as re cent cables emphasise, the Australian Comimonwealth and the Dominion oi New Zealand will be lumped in with the British Empire as a whole, and have no individual assessors. - * * * \ » The International Court of Appeal once* decided upon, it became necessary "to secure an understanding between the Powers as to the general principles of law recognised by them to be binding upon their respective nrize courts in the more im,poritanit questions that- might come under it s jurisdiction. Hence, in response to invitation from Great Britain,

the Conference of London met in December, 1808, and by February 26th. 1909, the Declaration of London %vas drawn up and provisionally signed. It is obvious that as far as Great Britain is concerned, the most vital problem that she has to face in war time is how to secure the safety of her food supply. In article 24 of the Declaration food stuff.and forage are included under the name of '••conditional contraband," which, by the terms of article 33, is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for tht armed forces, or for the Government . department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances showthat the goods cannot in fact be Used for the purposes of the wao- in progress. • if * *

In article 34 we read : "The destination referred to in Article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a trader- (commercant) established in the enemy country who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy. A similar presumption arises if the goods are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy, or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy. The interpretation of this passage evidenlty turns upon the meaning of the word "enemy," which in other articles of the Declaration means simply "the inhabitants ol the inimical country." With this interpretation "we are forced," in the worcfeof Mr. —arris, "to the unwelcome conclusion that all foodstuffs or other conditional contraband articles consigned to • traders or merchants in Great Britain in time of war, even if solely kitended for the need of the -civil population, are, nevertheless, to be presumed to be destined for our armed forces, or a Government department, and will thus become contraband, and liable to capture."

v That this is no strained -or fanciful interpretation is admitted by Sir Edward Grey himself, for he has expressed the intention of making-, after the ratification of the original instrument, a further declaration to the effectjthat His Majesty's Government intend to limit the meaning of the term "enemy"' to the armed forces or Government departments of the enemy State. What he expects to gain by such definition is not ' apparent. But the meaning of the term "enemy" is hot the only part of Article 34 th.-Tfc calls for definition. What constitutes a "fortified place," and what is meant by "a place serving as a base fox armed forces"? The answer to these' very pertinent questions is apparently to be left in the first instance to the officer in command of a hostile commerce destroyer wliich makes a capture, and we have the very trifling consolation of knowing that if his decision is wrong, the merchant affected, may be able at some future date to recover damages from the Hague Court of Appeal! But this is not all. Article 35 specifically states that conditional contraband ' is exempt from capture if » it is consigned to an intervening neutral port. Assuming then that England and Germany were at war, a cargo of Argentine wheat consigned to Glasgow would be liable ut. capture; but a cargo consigned to Antwerp would beimmunefrorii capture. In plain English,, on the important question of food supply, the Declaration of Lor. don discriminates against England, since she .is the'only great Power who has ur land communication with neutral; ports. • • • » *

On the important questions of the rights of neutrals and the conversion of merchant ships into armed destroyers, the terms of: the Declaration of London appear to be equally detrimental to our national interests. Great Britain own*, roughly, half the shipping of the world.' Hitherto we have' insisted that m no circumstances may -neutral prizes, be sunk. They , must, be .taken into port,and brought before a properly constituted Prize Court. But Article 49 of Lhe Declaration provides that 'a neutral vessel which has been captured by & belligerent warship, and which would be liable to condemnation, may bo ed if taking her into port would.involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of the operations in which she is Engaged at the time." In this case, also it as obviously left to the discretion of the,officer commanding the commerce destroyer to decide whether this Article applies to the individual case under consideration. The danger to British shipping under such a rule in the event of a war between two foreign Powers is apparent; But even if we are belligerents the; ruling makes against us. ''We alone have ports scattered, broadcast all over the world" proper for the determination of prize cases; It appears then:■ that our enemy, not possessing such ports, would be. amply justified by the Declaration of London in sinking her prizes, and in pursuing a vio-orous campaign of wanton destruction, while we would be generally compelled to take- neutral prizes captured by us into, port for adjudication bv a Prize Court.

The overseas dominions, the great purveyors of the world's foodstuffs, may well complain that their interests have met with scant consideration ! But the risks to oversea commerce are increased still more by the claim of the Continental Powers that the conversion of'merchant unto commerce destroyers may take place at sea in any part of the world, and without any previous notice being given, either to the enemy or to neutral Powers. Against this claim our representatives vigorously protested, and their protest was ignored. The question, therefore, remains an open one; but' there is no doubt that in the event oi a war Continental Powers will exercise the right they claim. In view of all these considerations there is little ground for wonder that! the "Declaration of London" has raised a storm of protest from those whose interests at sacrifices rather than safeguards. It Svill be. interesting to see what reception it meetc* with from the Imperial Parliament when it is submitted to them for ratification during the course of next session.