Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

(S. rp. 113.) (Includes House report 85, 65th Cong., 1st sess., and Memorandum of American cases and recent English cases on law of trading with the enemy, by Charles Warren.) Commerce Committee.

Conference report to accompany H. R. 4960 submitted by Mr. Montague, Sept. 21, 1917. 12 pp. (H. rp. 155.)

Conference report submitted by Mr. Fletcher, Sept. 22, 1917. 8 pp. (S. doc. 110.)

War powers under the Constitution. Address by Charles E. Hughes, delivered before American Bar Association, Saratoga, N. Y., Sept. 4-6, 1917. 14 pp. (S. doc. 105). Senate.

GEORGE A. FINCH.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF

INTERNATIONAL LAW

THE “ACHAIA1

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

April 7, 1916

LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON. The Achaia was a German steamship of 2732 tons, belonging to the Deutsche Levante Linie, of Hamburg. She arrived at the port of Alexandria on July 31, 1914, in the course of a voyage from Bremen to Alexandria, and thence to certain Syrian ports. She carried a general cargo, part of which was consigned to Alexandria. She had discharged this part of her cargo by 4 P.M. on August 4. Upon the outbreak of war between Germany and this country she was, under the Egyptian decision of August 5, allowed till sunset on August 14 to leave the port of Alexandria. On August 12 she was offered a pass for the Piræus available till sunset on August 14, signed by Lieutenant Grogan Bey, Inspector of Marine of the Egyptian Ports and Lights Administration. According to the evidence of Max Stross, the ship's agent, she made all arrangements to leave, but at the last moment came to the conclusion that it would be too dangerous unless the pass were viséd by the French Consul. Moreover, she believed that all Egyptian ports were neutral. She accordingly elected to remain where she was. The port authorities thereupon seized the ship and disabled her engines. Subsequently, on October 19, 1914, the captain and crew were made prisoners of war, and the ship placed in the custody of the marshal of the prize court. There can be no doubt that what happened amounted to a seizure as prize.

Their Lordships have already decided in the case of the Gutenfels ? that Egyptian ports must be treated as enemy ports within the meaning of the Sixth Hague Convention. Under the circumstances, however, they are of opinion that the recommendation contained in Article 1 of 1 2 Appeal Cases, 1916, p. 198. This JOURNAL, July, 1916, p. 628.

that Convention was fully complied with. The vessel was given sufficient time to leave the port of Alexandria. She was offered a pass to a neutral port, and there is no reason to suppose that such pass was insufficient, or would not have been recognized as valid by any belligerent Power. The fact that the vessel did not leave Alexandria under this pass was not due to force majeure, but to her own deliberate election not to do so. She cannot, therefore, rely on the provisions of Art. 2 of the convention. Even if Alexandria could be regarded as a neutral port, the fact would be immaterial. The seizure of an enemy vessel in a neutral port, though a breach of neutrality, would not in a court of prize afford any ground for its release.

The case is, in their Lordships' opinion, a clear one. The appeal should be dismissed, and the appellants will pay the costs. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.

[blocks in formation]

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

May 17, 1916 Where substantial injustice would otherwise result, the prize court has an inherent power to set aside its own decrees of condemnation so as to let in bona fide claims by parties who have not been heard, and who have not had an opportunity of appearing. This power is discretionary and should not be exercised except where there would be substantial injustice if the decree, were allowed to stand, and where the application has been promptly made.

THE "ST. HELENA” 2

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

August 1, 1916 The jurisdiction of the prize court which attaches upon a capture or seizure in prize and extends to all incidental matters, such as questions of freight, is not terminated by the ship or cargo being handed over to claimants without a formal release by the court under Order XIII of the Prize Court Rules.

A British ship which has abandoned a voyage from the United States to Hamburg in consequence of the outbreak of war is not entitled to be awarded by the prize court any compensation in lieu of freight in respect of cargo seized at an English port subsequently to the abandonment of the voyage. 1 2 Appeal Cases, 1916, p. 203.

; Ibid., p. 625.

THE "CANTON" 1

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

November 15, 1916
The Judicial Committee will not grant special leave to appeal from a requisi-
tioning order made by the judge of the prize court under the Prize Court Rules,
Order XXIX, it not being disputed that the goods were urgently required for the
prosecution of the war, unless, in their Lordships' opinion, the judge, in determining
that there was cause for investigation so that an immediate release to the claimant
would be improper, applied the wrong principles or came to an obviously erroneous
decision.

Special leave to appeal refused without deciding whether there was an appeal
as of right.

Rule in The Zamora [1916] 2 A. C. 77 (this JOURNAL, April, 1916, p. 422) affirmed.

[ocr errors]

1

THE “GERMANIA2

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

March 20, 1917
A racing yacht is not a merchant ship ("navire de commerce") within the
meaning of the Hague Convention, No. 6, Arts. 1, 2 (1), and consequently is not
entitled to the immunity from confiscation accorded to merchant ships thereunder.
An enemy racing yacht seized in a British port immediately upon the outbreak of
war is, therefore, subject to condemnation as prize according to the ordinary rule
applied to enemy property seized in port.

THE “STANTON" 3

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

March 22, 1917
By Order XVIII, r. 2, of the Prize Court Rules, "any person instituting a pro-
ceeding, other than a cause for condemnation, or making a claim, and being ordi-
narily resident out of the jurisdiction of the court, may be ordered to give security
for costs, ... and the proceedings may be stayed until such security is given."

The Procurator-General claimed the condemnation, as goods having an enemy
destination or as enemy property, of pork consigned from the United States to the
appellant in Sweden. The appellant, who was ordinarily resident at Gothenburg,
filed a claim to the goods as his property intended exclusively for consumption in
Sweden, the claim being supported by an affidavit and exhibited documents. The

1 Appeal Cases, 1917, p. 102. 2 Ibid., p. 375. 3 Ibid., p. 380.

President, without any evidence on the part of the Crown, made an order that the appellant should give £100 security for costs:

Held, that it did not appear that the discretion conferred by the rule had not been exercised judicially, and that the order was valid.

THE “MARQUIS BACQUEHEM” 1

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

April 13, 1916 A merchant vessel belonging to a belligerent Power which enters an enemy port with knowledge that hostilities have broken out is subject to condemnation, although she has derived that knowledge from an enemy warship which has allowed her to proceed on her voyage.

An Austrian vessel, which, after being stopped at sea by a British warship and told of the outbreak of hostilities, was allowed to continue her voyage, entered the port of Suez, apparently in the belief that it would be treated as a neutral port. She was prevented from entering the Canal and was detained. Subsequently she was taken out to sea and conducted to a British warship which seized her as prize:

Held, reversing the judgment of H.B.M. Supreme Court for Egypt, which had made an order for detention during the war and restoration to the owners at its conclusion, that the vessel must be condemned.

APPEAL from H.B.M. Supreme Court for Egypt.

SIR SAMUEL EVANS. The subject-matter of this appeal is an AustroHungarian steamship of about 4400 tons gross register.

The court at Alexandria pronounced that the ship had been seized under such circumstances as to be entitled to detention in lieu of con. fiscation, and ordered that she should be detained until further order. The court further declared that the ship should be restored or her value paid to the owners at the conclusion of the war, in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Convention No. VI of 1907.

The appellant contends that this order should be set aside, and asks for the condemnation and confiscation of the ship as prize.

The respondents seek to uphold the order. They have not brought a cross-appeal and do not ask for restitution.

The facts alleged and relied upon by the respondents in support of the order were that on August 17, 1914, when the ship was in the Red Sea about 150 miles north of Port Sudan, on her voyage from Karachi to Trieste, she was boarded by officers from H.M.S. Duke of Edinburgh and informed of the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and

1 2 Appeal Cases, 1916, p. 186.

« AnteriorContinuar »