EDITORIAL COMMENT.

Progress, Volume VI, Issue 4, 1 February 1911, Page 533

EDITORIAL COMMENT.

The Declaration of London. jßelot-c discussing the chorus of protest I‘ijjikg on all sides throughout the British Islands against the Declaration of London,, it .will, he as well, to consider what the Declaration is and what led up to it. The Declaration is the outcome of the last of the Hague Conferences, which amongst other things resolved on the. setting, up of an ,International Prize Court. The reason was to get rid of many doubtful points of practice and to transfer the decision of international law points from interested to disinterested authorities. At ?present the prizes of war are adjudicated by Admiralty Courts of the capturing country, according to international law, it is ’ true, but international law chiefly, as interpreted-by authorities interested in the decision. The determination of the Hague Congress was duly considered by a conference of representative men. and these came to agreement. As they had met in the city -of London, the principles they drew up for the guidance of the International Prize Court came to be known as the Declaration of London. This international court is ■ not a court of first instance. That would he impossible, regard being bad to the urgent

necessity for prompt despatch of such business, the Admiralty Courts of all nations being by common, consent as numerous as possible, and well scattered among their ports so that all captures may get quick settlement.' The courts of first instance will be the courts under the present system, and from their decisions there will, if the Declaration of London is sufficiently ratified, he appeal to the International Prize Court sitting probably at the 'Hague. About the goods of an enemy in the bottoms of the enemy there can he no doubt. They and the enemy’s bottoms are legitimate prize of war. To safeguard their goods, therefore, belligerents- have recourse to the, expedient of shipping their goods in neutral bottoms. Hence the necessity for.’drawing the line between goods* that area out i-nhand and goods that are not. ' Ip theory there is no difficulty; in practice the difficulty is extreme at times. All munitions of war are, of course, contraband; and all food, comforts and-appurtenances destined for the use of amines. The difficulty of deciding what is contraband in ( obtain circumstances is great. It may? did reasonably an open question. But a prize court of the old order is sure to decide it In favour of its own country’s wishes, which are identical with its interests always. The appeal to international authority accepted by all and administering international law according to a code agreed upon by all nations through their representatives no doubt reduces danger of injustice ■ to a minimum. In that respect the Declaration is an improvement. But with the question of contraband or conditional contraband it is different. The doctrine of “continuous voyage” brought into great prominence hy the United States during the American Civil War provides that a voyage is not to he considered broken when the goods destined for an eneUiy ’s harbours are landed at a neutral port in the neighbourhood of one of them with intention to forward them at convenience, ■i c., favourable moment for breaking blockade. The Declaration is said to lay down the principle that this doctrine is only applicable in the case of island countries, so that goods landed in a neutral port for transmission overland to an enemy’s country are immune from the doctrine of “continuous voyage.” Now under that doctrine the goods in question are seizable during the whole voyage from the start of the first part to the end of the second, namely, the moment of running the block-

ade. But if a neutral be free of the doctrine of continuous voyage," known contraband of war can pass under the noses of an enemy cruisers on the way to the territory of the other belligerent. This is what the whole English speaking world is now protesting against as likely to happen in the event of war with Germany, in the course of which the British cruisers would have to let everything bound for a neutral port, say Flushing, pass, though ; their arrival at Hamburg or Bremen or Williamsliaven in due course by land might ho as certain as the shining of the sun at noonday. That would be a hardship to Britain, and there would be, no mitigation in, the shape of reprisal, for the simple reason that being an.island, Britain is subject to the doctrine of continuous; voyage. In another case, moreover], :'it 'is Arguable that the whole- of our food- supply might be ;d<|clared. contraband .by ingenious reasoning .on' the . line that goods destined ; for an enemy's troops are contraband. The argument niight?ruti! thus; There is no food in England except what is brought by sea it is impossible., to -say what part of the i'ood at sea is destined for an army,; manifestly the wisest course is to declare it all contraband. Moreover,-, as h the British people would be r unable carry on the war without food, the food^eafight'by the enemy's cruisers is destined "to Britain to maintain the, war';' consequently it is 'contraband : of war. Such a decision would have irresistible attractions for an enemy of Britain and indesJTihabld provocations for the people of Great Britain. It is well .to declare that people have obeyed such conventions as the Geneva Cross, but none of them have before them such contingencies as this, which no one would deny must offer tremendous temptation to disobedience. Britain' would, it comes to this, be without uracil reason for complaint' so long as she!" remained ' the . stronger, and in the event of weakening would have no hope at all,; This is one cause of the protests. The other is the doctrine of- continuous voyage. We are of opinion that it is arguable— sufficient tenacity for a belligerent to make good—that voyages are continuous whether they are wholly or partially on the sea; but the difficulty of distinguishing would be enormous. When the vast majority of the shipping representatives protest ; it is clear that the business of ratifying, this Declaration of London ought not; to* be done in a hurry. Are our Chambers of( Commerce going to do anything? - 1