« AnteriorContinuar »
wars such as have been waged by Great Britain in the views of Britpast, are quite inapplicable to the case which has now arisen of war with an inland State, whose only communication with the sea is over a few miles of railway to a neutral port. In a portion of the Introduction the author discusses the question of destination of the cargo, as distinguished from destination of the vessel, in a manner by no means favorable to the contention advanced in Count Hatzfeldt's note. Moreover, Professor Holland, who edited a revised edition of this Manual in 1888, in a recent letter published in the “Times," has expressed an opinion altogether inconsistent with the view which the German Government endeavor to found upon the words of the Manual.
In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the passage cited from the Manual, “that the destination of the vessel is conclusive as to the destination of the goods on board,” has no application to such circumstances as have now arisen.
It cannot apply to contraband of war on board of a neutral vessel if such contraband was at the time of seizure consigned or intended to be delivered to an agent of the enemy at a neutral port, or, in fact, destined for the enemy's country.
The true view in regard to the latter category of goods is, as Her Majesty's Government believe, correctly stated in paragraph 813 of Professor Bluntschli’s “Droit International Codifié," as follows (I cite from the French translation of 1874, 2nd edition, of the work of this eminent German jurist):
“Si les navires ou marchandises ne sont expédiés à destination d'un port neutre que pour mieux venir en aide à l'ennemi il y aura contrebande de guerre et la confiscation sera justifiée.”
Her Majesty's Government are unable therefore to agree that there are grounds for ordering the release of the “Bundesrath” without examination by the Prize Court as to whether she was carrying contraband of war belonging to, or destined for, the South African Republics. But they fully recognize how desirable it is that this examination should be carried through at the earliest possible moment, and that all proper consideration should be shown for the owners and for innocent passengers and merchandise on board of her. Repeated and urgent instructions have been sent by telegraph for this purpose, and arrange
ments have been made for the speedy transmission of the mails.
Your excellency will address a note to the German Minister for Foreign Affairs containing the above observations. I am, etc.,
The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir F. Lascelles.
FOREIGN OFFICE, January 11, 1900. Sir, Baron von Eckardstein called on me yesterday, and in the course of conversation on the subject of the recent seizures of German mail-steamers, informed me that in view of the protest which I had made against the position taken up by the German Government that there could not
any question of contraband of trade between neutral ports, they had decided to abstain from pressing or diseussing their opinion for the present in order to facilitate a speedy and amicable settlement. etc.,
STATUS OF AUXILIARY CRUISERS IN TIME OF WAR.
CASE OF THE UNITED STATES CRUISER YALE AT THE
TIME OF THE CAPTURE OF THE SPANISH STEAMER
RITA DURING THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR.
(Fed. Rep., vol. 89, p. 763.)
United States District Judge Brawley, October 13, 1898:
Conditions of Yale's service as
As the proof shows that the Rita was an unarmed meran auxiliary chant vessel, the captors are entitled to one-half of the
prize money, and Capt. W. C. Wise, being in command of the capturing vessel and on independent duty, is entitled to three-twentieths of the amount allowed to the captors. No other vessel being in sight and entitled to share, the only question for determination is as to the distribution of the residue, and this question arises out of the somewhat anomalous character of the capturing vessel. The capture was made May 8, 1898, by the United States cruiser Yale, which prior to April 30, 1898, was known as the "City of Paris.” She belonged to the International Navigation Company, and was of the class of steamships which, under
the provisions of the act of March 3, 1891, was subject to be taken by the United States as a cruiser or transport, upon payment of her actual value. By a charter party and supplementary agreement entered into April 30, 1898, between the company and the government, acting through the secretary of the navy, possession of the ship was transferred to the government. By it she was heavily armed, and converted into an auxiliary cruiser, and her name changed. The charter party provided that the ship should be “manned, victualed, and supplied at the expense of the charterer,” which is also to pay all other expenses whatsoever, and return the same in good repair, less ordinary wear and tear, at the termination of the chartering, which was to be at the will of the charterer. The supplementary agreement provided that the ship was “to be manned by her regular officers and crew, and in addition thereto was to take on board two naval officers, a marine officer, and a guard of thirty marines, and was to be victualed and supplied with two months' provisions, and about four thousand tons of coal; the actual cost to the owners of such additional equipment and services to be reimbursed by the charterer upon bills to be certified by the senior naval officer on board.” There were also provisions protecting the owner against all expenses and liability, and a provision that during the continuation of the supplementary agreement the steamship was to be “under the entire control of the senior naval officer on board."
The evidence fully establishes the fact that the peti- Civilian em tioner Watkins and others of the crew of the City of Paris, Yale in the mentioned in his petition, although not formally enlisted, government. were “doing duty on board and borne upon the books.” They were charged with the navigation of the ship. There was no other crew on board capable of performing that service. From them was selected the prize master and crew which brought the Rita into port for condemnation. If they were not in the service" of the government while performing that mission, they incurred the hazard of being considered as pirates.
GENERAL ORDERS, WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, July 18, 1898.
Washington, July 13, 1898. To the SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR: The capitulation of the Spanish forces in Santiago de Cuba and in the eastern part of the Province of Santiago, and the occupation of the territory by the forces of the United States, render it necessary to instruct the military commander of the United States as to the conduct which he is to observe during the military occupation.
The first effect of the military occupation of the enemy's territory is the severance of the former political relations of the inhabitants and the establishment of a new political power. Under this changed condition of things the
inhabitants, so long as they perform their duties, are Security of entitled to security in their persons and property and in
all their private rights and relations. It is my desire that the inhabitants of Cuba should be acquainted with the purpose of the United States to discharge to the fullest extent its obligations in this regard. It will therefore be the duty of the commander of the army of occupation to anuounce and proclaim in the most public manner that we come not to make war upon the inhabitants of Cuba, nor upon any party or faction among them, but to protect them in their homes, in their employments, and in their personal and religious rights. All persons who, either by active aid or by honest submission, cooperate with the United States in its efforts to give effect to this beneficent purpose will receive the reward of its support and protection. Our occupation should be as free from severity as possible.
Though the powers of the military occupant are absolute and supreme and immediately operate upon the political condition of the inhabitants, the municipal laws of the Municipal laws conquered territory, such as affect private rights of person cause. and property and provide for the punishment of crime, are considered as continuing in force, so far as they are compatible with the new order of things, until they are suspended or superseded by the occupying belligerent and in practice they are not usually abrogated, but are allowed to remain in force and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals, substantially as they were before the occupation. This enlightened practice is, so far as possible, to be adhered to on the present occasion. The judges and the other officials connected with the administration of justice may, if they accept the supremacy of the United States, continue to administer the ordinary law of the land, as between man and man, under the supervision of the American commander in chief. The native constabulary will, so far as may be practicable, be preserved. The freedom of the people to pursue their accustomed occupations will be abridged only when it may be necessary to do so.
While the rule of conduct of the American commander Other in chief will be such as has just been defined, it will be necessity. his duty to adopt measures of a different kind, if, unfortunately, the course of the people should render such measures indispensable to the maintenance of law and order. He will then possess the power to replace or expel the native officials in part or altogether, to substitute new courts of his own constitution for those that now exist, or to create such new or supplementary tribunals as may be necessary. In the exercise of these high powers, the commander must be guided by his judgment and his experience and a high sense of justice.
One of the most important and most practical problems with which it will be necessary to deal is that of the treatment of property and the collection and administration of the revenues. It is conceded that all public funds erwblic and securities belonging to the government of the country in its own right, and all arms and supplies and other movable property of such government, may be seized by the military occupant and converted to his own use. The real property of the state he may hold and administer, at the same time enjoying the revenues thereof, but he is not to destroy it save in the case of military necessity. All
procedure in case of