MARITIME WARFARE.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 13703, 18 September 1908, Page 7

MARITIME WARFARE.

C'OXFEREXCE IX LONDON*.

An important internatioiiil conference will meet in London on October 1 to consider whether it is possible to draw up a code of Laws of naval warfare. This is a belated attempt toundo the mischief which - was done by the action of "the British and (German Governments at The Hague Conference, when they inmitedon tstablkhing an International Prize Court, withoot making any provision as to the law which the Court would have to ad-. minister. The British Governments no sooner succeeded in obtaining the r'Ssent of the conference to their International Prize Court scheme than they discovered that it was impossible to induce Parliament to pas» the legislation necessary to bring the Court into effective existence until they were; in a.position to inform the country of-the law the Court would administer. At present the utmost confusion prevails as to what is and what is not the law of naval warfare. We have our own ideas. Continental Powers have theirs, and it is evident that if questions were to be -sent to the Court without- any preliminary agreement as to the law they were to interpret and apply the only result would be that the judgf«—among whom the English would be in a permanent minority—would have all"(ftiMiions decided ~ accord ing to the ideas of tlte majority of Continental Powers. Last May Sir Edward Grey addressed a proposal to the chief maritime Powers asking thorn each to «end a delegate" to London in October next to discuss eight questions which were left in more or if s unsettled state by the discussion at The Hague. At first it was expected tliat only the six Great Poweis of Europe, Japan, and America would b? invited, but. somewhat to the general surprise. Spbin was included, and then Holland was aho added. th«« Government of the Xetlierlands being invited solely because that country ! is the seat of The Hague Tribunal. The conference, therefore, will consist of the representatives of ten Poweis. Rome dissatisfaction is expressed as to the exclusion of Norway, whose maritime shipping entitle* .her to the position of a maritime Power of the first rank. \"o South American Government has been invited^ The nine Powers who have received .invitations have been requested to draw|np a memorandum as to their ideas on the feubjecta .on jjjor before j.Angnfit 1. The names of tl»e'delegates have not yet been announced, but it is- understood that the Russian representative will b* Karon Taube. who represented the Riosian Government at the; International t'luiuni.tsion at I'arw, which settled the North Sea incident. ... THK QUESTIONS TO BE DISCUSSED. Tb*-re are eight bUbjevts down Jor tliscubsion. *• 'lhe tirst relates to contraband of war. It is understood that England wiil once more propose tlie entire abolition of the Liw "ot contraband, both conditional and unconditional, aud, as it ts iinpo?jsitj|e that sli«* will obtain unanimity, it is p<u»t>d>le that »he wdl attempt to obtain an agreement with as many Powers possible for the reciprocal abolition of the right to seize contraband under a neutral flag on tblie high seas. lhe ditinition of what in contraband, and what is not will al*o be discussed, aud the vexed problem of conditional contraband will also have to be dealt with. Another belated question » that as to the proportion of contraband goods which will justify seizure, a.*, for instance, it Hould be montsrous to seize an Atlantic luier b.-causa j«he had on IsMtd a carve of DtU-# or a box of revolver*. Uut what that proportion will be no one at pi«sent knows. Under the head of contraband another entirely new question i* raav-d. viz.. wb«--tlier neutral vessels und-r ti>- lomov «>t neutral «ai*hij» should or nhould not l>f exempt I'rom the right of Th.ti quextmn was not d»»cu<sed at Tlk- Hagti ,iud it seems ver%- difticult to iuider»taiid on what principle «>uih an exempti<»n ; can lie claimed. The last question uniler lhe h'-ad of ton trabtpd »s on what principle nrntr.il v.n p-k I>*» tom|»cns.«ted when th--decide* tlwt luv. 1> rn fully 'I he scioixf question on tl.e i-. that a* to tl».' blockade. I uiirr tl.s» head there are two subject for ducursion. The tirsr is a* to whether the Wo.-k.idui,; Power would ha»» a right to •-•!« ship' int-ndi.it: to run the bWkadr. t he moment tiny Irft pftrt, or whether I'K r»«hi «d c.tpiuro should 1 >e limited to pr> cr*'y defined by loiigtitud. jti't tude, or hv a ivrtain from tlie bl'nlad'd l«"il 'lly other question is a« to the matter nf no;ii>-. Should d-dinite If K»vcn to the existence of a r.Sate ol bloeUadc. aii'l should that notice !»•- iHn r r<-d t<» • vrry i »TUKR I'ROlU.i:\is Rf lu-;eiDKi>. «bird que«tio« r*-latCT> %• ry difty-ull probhm <{f con: inuot'.-* voyage■. 11. for »ia«tan»v, a. vatuo of contraband * .hippd from New York to Antwerp for the of orsn£ »* iiv> yr.! tti.i« {,„ t ; »o Germany, a wax in *»hi<h

Germany Vais engaged, would it be legal to seize the -'cargo on tlie ground mat although consigned to a neutral-, port en route, its ultimate destination was German territory? - . ; The fourth' question' is one on which there is absolute antagonism in principle between Russia", and England, viz.. whether belligerent ships hare -the right to d. 6troy on the high sens neutral prizes containing contraband, if it is impossible to conv«y .them to a port where the legality of their seizure can be decided. Then comes another ■vexed question as to the amount of assistance that neutral shij» may .render to belligerent fleets, or the extent to-which neutral Powers may allow their ports to be used for coaling ships of belligerents or furnishing them with material of war. After this comes the legality of the conversion, of merchant shij*. into nten of war. Can this be done, as England pretend*, only in the territorial waters? of the belligergpts, or can it be effected, as Russia and Germany maintain, on the high seas? The, seventh question relates •to - the transfer of merchant shipping of belligerents to neutral flags, either before or during war. The last question relates to the rule which should guide the Court in deciding the. nationality of a captured ship. Should the question of nationality be governed by the domicile or by the nationality of the owner? As England has summoned the confer? "ence, and as it will be held' in the president will be an Englishman. Each delegate will probably be a/:sisted by one or more experts. T