CONTRABAND OF WAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6325, 27 September 1907, Page 5

CONTRABAND OF WAR

NO SETTLEMENT BRITAIN MAKES A PROPOSAL. REGARDING THE RIGHT OF SEARCH. 3" Telegraph—Prf.~>3 Association—Copyright (Received September 26, 9.43 p,m.) LONDON, September 26. “The Times,” in an article dealing with the Peace Convention at The Hague, says that a sub-coramitteo appointed by the Fourth Committee of th© Conference to report on the question of contraband has submitted its report. This is to the effect that the subcommittee has arrived at the conclusion that it will bo impossible to arrive at any settlement of the questions of ’“absolute” and “conditional” contraband.

Great Britain’s representatives will now propose the framing of a convention under which all States sharing Britain’s views in favour of the total abolition of contraband shall only exorcise the right of search in order to establish the neutral character of vessels at sea- ■

On the question of private property at sea duri/jff war tiro© Julian S. Corbett lias a paper in the “Nineteenth Century/' He maJiM a significant quotation from Professor Perels (“International Seerecht”) to the effect that the main factor against exemption is that the British Government since the declaration of Paris liaii rnaintaued an. attitude of persistent and determined resistance to all movements for reforming tho laws of maritime warfare. That attitude on the part of a Power in command of the sea-power ”Ig finite understandable, but of course there may easily be circumstances such as arose during the Russo-Japanese war which might suggest some important differences of opinion. “Wo are warned by some of the best international lawyers/' writes Mr Corbett, “that there U growing up abroad a mass of hostile opinion on the subject, which it is unsafe for us to ignore." But be quotes Grotiua and Bynkershock as buying down the axiom the right to destroy or confiscate ; all property whatsoever belonging to an enemy wherever found. "Vattel. another recognised authority on international law, modified this dictum by the proviso that the exercise of this right should only be permtted in so far aa it may be called for the purposes of war. It has consequently become the practice for an invading enemy, says this writer, to treat private property with a certain respect, and to endeavour to set some restraint upon its indiscriminate plunder and destruction. But it is also urged hero that the sea service. in demanding tho retention of its right to general capture, asks no more, than what is universally granted to the land service, or, In other words, the right to exercise war righto over property in so far a« the pressure necessary to bring peace cannot be exerted without it. The assertion that tho right of capture is maintained by naval officers for the sake of prize money Is examined and condemned. “The reason why naval officers urge with heart and soul the retention of the old right of capture," writes Mr Corbett, "is because they know not how to make war without it, nor can my man tell them." j*