THE CITY OF FLINT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23951, 28 October 1939, Page 10

THE CITY OF FLINT

Developments in the case of the City of Flint, the United States freighter which was seized in the Atlantic by a German warship and sent under a prize crew to a Russian port, presumably for internment on Germany’s behalf, indicate that the dispute is resolving itself logically into a testing of international law in so far as it governs the privileges of neutral shipping during war time. It presents features that may bring it within the category of what in law is known as a leading case. The German Government has claimed the right, as exercised by Great Britain, to seize vessels carrying contraband of war, and that right has, up to a point, been admitted in the United States, where it was stated a few days ago that a neutral carrying at least 51 per cent, of contraband could be arrested provided that tire master knew that his cargo was contraband. In the case of the City of Flint, however, it is denied that the proportion of contra-

band cargo exceeded the legal limit, and the Administration at Washington is therefore demanding the release of the vessel on the grounds that confiscation cannot be justified. The position now is that, while Germany seems to be relying upon the Russian authorities to hand the ship over to her, the United States Government has presented a case for its unconditional release. In support of that demand Mr Cordell Hull has found a precedent in the case of a British ship which was sent to an American port by the German raider Moewe in 1916, and was later released in terms of a Supreme Court judgment. It is also argued by the American Secretary of State that the law permits a prize ship to be taken to a neutral port only in the event of exceptional circumstances, such as a breakdown, and that its release must automatically follow the completion of repairs. The two citations seem effectively to cover the American demand for the removal of the restraints placed on the City of Flint. If it can be shown conclusively that the amount of contraband carried did not exceed the legal limit, the decision in 1916 would seem to nullify the German claim on the vessel. The other reasons given by the German Government for taking the vessel to a Russian port—that it lacked the maps necessary for the navigation of the Baltic and was, therefore, non-navigable—-would appear to be covered by the second part of Mr Cordell Hull’s declaration. The likelihood is that the United States Government’s view of the position is shared, at least to some extent, by the Soviet Government, for a Moscow report declares that the authorities at Murmansk, after examining the City of Flint’s cargo, have ordered the ship to depart as soon as possible. But whether she is to depart under the American or under the German flag is a question that is raised by the fact that no information respecting the United States crew has been made available. Russia in any case must seem to be rather delicately placed in a dispute of this nature. To order the departure of the City of Flint from Murmansk would be to act consistently with her claim to be regarded as a neutral. But it is inconsistent with that claim that she should examine and check the steamer’s cargo. She herself has protested to Great Britain against the operation of the contraband patrols, which, in the erroneous Soviet view, “ violates the principles of international law and gravely impairs the interests of neutrals.” In' all the circumstances, the Soviet must come oddly, even if legally, within the neutral category. But if she insists of being there, the probability is that she will have to disappoint her newly-acquired partner by handing back the American prize.