CAPTURES AT SEA

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8810, 13 August 1914, Page 6

CAPTURES AT SEA

HOW MERCHANT SHIPS STAND. The question of the greatest importance to cue commercial world arose immediately Britain oecame at war. That- question is, as to contraband, wnat. goods are liable to seizure at sea by the enemy, even if they are carried in neutral vessels '{ onioituiiately, the international “law” or custom, or'whatever else it may .be called, on this subject is not settled. An attempt was made to settle it at a conference of the chief naval Powers held in London in 1908-9, but though the Declaration of London, in which the results of the conference were embodied. was signed by representatives of Britain and other countries, it has not been ratified by Parliament. On this subject, however, the Declaration adopted a distinction, previously recognised under British and American practice, between “absolute” and “conditional” contraband. Arms and other munitions of war, and all kinds of warlike equipment, and so on, were to be seizable under any circumstances But* foodstuffs and forage, bullion, vehicles, and railway material, and boats and flying machines, harness and horseshoes, and telescopes, and gobds generally which might bo useful \in wartime, wdro only seizable on a neutral ship if they were found to be destined for the enemy’s forces. Both enemy goods in neutral ships and neutral goods in enemy ships, may be taken- as free from capture. ’ IN AN ENEMY’S COUNTRY. What will be the position of British subjects in Germany, or Germans in Britain—or in Australia, for that matter—if war should break out between these countries P Practice has differed, and, of course, international law hasn’t anything very much behind it, but so far as it is worth there seems now to have been established a pretty general customary rule. All such enemy subjects as are not obliged by the law of their country to join its armed forces, are allowed a reasonable time to leafre. On the other hand, such enemy subjects as belong to this country’s military forces, or are reservists, may be detained as prisoners of war. So that Austria’s arrest of a number of Servian reservists was quite justifiable. Of course, belligerents could not be expected to supply each other with additions to their means of defence or offence. On the other hand, belligerents are not : obliged -to .allow enemy subjects to remain within' their territories, though they often do so;'in fact, in the Crimean war, for instance, Russian subjects were allowed to remain in Britain and Franco, and so were Japanese in Russia during the Russo-Japanese war. On the other hand, Prance expelled all Germans during the Framco-Prussian war, and Russia, though during the war with Japan she allowed Japanese to remain in other parts of her Empire, expelled them from its Far Eastern provinces; Of bourse, if an enemy subject who is allowed to “ stay on” in this way uses his position to help his own country—well, he gets what ho deserves. ENEMY SHIPS IN PORT. If people are, as a rule, safe enough in an enemy’s country, even on the outbreak of war with their own, what about enemy ships—that is, for inmerchant ships ? Supose, for instance, Britain were at war with Germany, what would be the position -of German. ships in Imperial pprts—or the other way round, of course. In the old days, such ships were simply captured, and there was no more to it. But about the middle of the 19th century a practice- grew up of leaving such vessels, whether in or only on the way to an enemy’s ports, a reasonable time to leave, or come in and go out again. Usually a definite time was proclaimed. In the Franco-Prus-sian, Busso-Turkish, Russo-Japanese, and othern modern wars,, this practice was observed, though tne time; allowed greatly varied. Agreement on tne subject was reached at The Hague Conference of 1907. This provides that such enemy ships are to be given a reasonable time to leave, and to proceed direct to their port of destination. The same applies to a ship which left its last port of departure before the war, and entered an enemy’s port in ignorance of the fact that_ war had broken out. But—and here is. an important point —“the present colivention,” it was stated, “does not refer to merchant ships which show by their build that they are intended for conversion into warships.’.' As to this oxception, Professor Pitt-Oobbett’s Leading Cases on International Law, a well-known text book, says that *_*ln practice it would probably be applied to any vessels susceptible of armamen’, and capable of being used as commerce destroyers, including subsidised lines and other vessels under contract to their own Government.” That seems pretty definite. Britain subscribed to tills rule; Germany agreed to it witu reservations.

The Telegraph Office reports that deferred ana week-end telegrams may now be accepted for the following places in the United Kingdom; London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Newcas-tle-on-Tyne, Edinburgh, Manchester, West Hartlepool, Bristol. , Dundee, Leith and Bradford. Messages must be sent via Pacific and Anglo route. Deferred messages for other places in the United Kingdom must be sent via Pacific and Commerial route. All me&sages are accepted at senders’ risk. Evidence that the British fleet still maintains control of the high seas is not lacking. Further proof of this is furnished by a cable message received by Bannatyne and Company stating that a- shipment of explosives h.-s left Home in the regular steamer for Wellington and the usual consignments will be forwarded next month. Private advice has also been received of the departure of the Buahine from London for Wellington, via ports. Just one more reason why you shouldi buy your men’s wear needs at Goo. Fowlds, Ltd., Manners street. , The special discount continues this week oal& ■