are not Norwegian subjects. They were not within any class of traders for whose benefit this agreement was made by the Norwegian government. They are simply a German corporation who had purchased foodstuffs in Norway for the German state and were engaged in conveying the same by sea to a German base of supply. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any ground of principle on which a claim on their part can be founded.

As to the cargo, therefore, I come to the conclusion that the claim of the Procurator General must prevail and there must be a decree of condemnation of the herrings as foodstuffs captured in course of transit to an enemy base.

The cargo of the Rannveig being contraband, what is the position of her owners? They dispatched their ship not only with full knowledge of the character of the burden and of its destination, but after the plainest possible warning of the risks they ran in so doing. There is no ground for the submission that they were misled. Under such circumstances none of the considerations arise which relieve from the penalty of confiscation shipowners who innocently carry contraband. Having regard to the rule laid down in The Hakan (1918) A. C. 148, it is my duty to pronounce condemnation of the Rannveig as good and lawful prize.48

48 A Swedish steamship, the Consul Corfitzon, was seized as prize in an English port, in September, 1915, while on a voyage from South American ports to Karlskrona, in Sweden.

The consignee, a Swedish subject, claimed the cargo, and alleged by his affidavit that it had been bought by him partly for his tanning business in Sweden, and partly for sale to customers in that country. The question was one of ultimate destination. If the transaction was to end in Sweden, then it was a neutral transaction from beginning to end. If, on the contrary, the intention of the consignee was to send the cargo, in whole or in part, to Germany, the goods could be seized before reaching Sweden, by the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage.

The Privy Council, per Lord Parker of Waddington, in The Consul Corfitzon, L. R. [1917] A. C. 550, affirmed the order of the court below for the submission of documents which would "throw light on the nature and course of the appellant's business and the volume of his trade with Germany for some months before the war and since the outbreak of the war." The question being whether the cargo was en route to Sweden or to Germany, the documents were calculated to establish the fact of destination.

"The ease with which, in the circumstances of the modern development of all sorts of transport, goods imported into a neutral country can find their way to the enemy territory, induced the Allies to adopt a rationing policy by which such imports were limited by the average pre-war quantities. In cases where shipments to neutral countries adjacent to enemy states were found to exceed considerably the statistical limits, the onus was thrown upon the claimants to discharge the inference of hostile destination.

"Lord Sterndale, in The Urna, April 14, 1919 (transcript from the official shorthand notes), affirmed on appeal [1920], 36 T. L. R. 652, condemned a cargo of dried fruits sent to Denmark on the ground that the imports into this country in the year of seizure were nearly three times higher the annual average before the war, and that the claimants had not rebutted the presumption that the goods were going to the enemy. And the Privy Council, in The Baron Stjernblad, held that it was impossible, in the presence of a tenfold increase of the imports of cocoa beans to Sweden, to avoid suspicion or to predicate, with regard to any particular shipment, that a considerable portion

THE MANUEL ESPALIU.

(French Prize Court, 1916. Translated from MS., Department of State.) In the name of the French people the Prize Court has rendered the following decision between:

On the one hand, the captain and owners, shippers and consignees of the cargo seized as contraband of war by the French naval authorities on June 13, 1916, on board the Spanish steamer Manuel Espaliu;

And, on the other hand, the Minister of the Navy, acting in the name and as representative of the State and of the rightful claimants of the proceeds of prizes:

Considering the Orders of the 6th of Germinal (March 26), in the year 8 (1800), and of the 2d of Prairial (May 21), in the year 11 (1803); Considering the Decrees of May 9, 1859, and November 28, 1861; Considering the Decrees of November 6, 1914, and of April 12, 1916, relative to the application of the Rules of the Declaration of London of 1909, and in force at the time of seizure of the cargo Manuel Espaliu;

Considering the notifications relative to contraband of war published in the Journal Officiel of October 14, 1915, and April 27, 1916; Considering the notice of opening of prize proceedings inserted in the Journal Officiel of August 12, 1916;

Considering the decision providing a delay, rendered by the Court before passing final judgment, on September 14, 1916;

Having heard M. Chardenet, Commissioner of the Government, in his statements in support of his aforementioned motions, and M. Henri Fromageot, member of the Court, in his report:

THE COURT, after due deliberation:

Whereas, on June 11, 1916, toward 7 p. m., the steamer Manuel Espaliu, under Spanish flag, bound from Barcelona and Tarrago..a to Genoa, after putting in at Cette, was stopped about two miles south of the island of Port Cros, in the Mediterranean Sea, by one of the battleships of the French fleet;

Whereas, in the course of the search, which, according to the official

thereof was not destined to find its way to Germany. (1917) 34 T. L. R. 106. Cf. The Norne (1921) 37 T. L. R. 541.

"The same presumption was acted upon by the French Prize Court in confiscating a cargo of wine on the Tiber consigned to Denmark when, according to the statistical evidence, the importations of wine into this neutral country, in the year under review, were eight times higher than the normal pre-war quantity. (1918) Journal Officiel, May 19, 1918, 4356. But, in the case of the Iberia, the court decreed release of the goods to claimants, who proved that the cargo, although exceeding the statistical limits, was really intended for bona fide consumption in Sweden. (1919) Journal Officiel, August 11, 1919, p. 8492." C. J. Colombos, "Cargoes in the Prize Courts of Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany," Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law (3d Series) vol. III, part IV, pp. 286, 297, October, 1921.

report, was effected on June 12, 1916, in the anchorage of Lavandon because of the roughness of the sea and the darkness, there were found on board in the cargo five lots of goods, to wit:

*

Whereas, it appears from the documents communicated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and appended to his aforementioned despatch of October 11, 1916, and especially from his letter of March 29, 1916, to the Director of the Swiss Economic Supervision Company, that according to the constitution of said company, commonly designated by "S. S. S." (Société Suisse de Surveillance), whose object is to guarantee the reality of final Swiss destination of goods imported into this neutral country, it has been agreed between the Swiss Federal Government and the Allied Powers that when goods are imported into Switzerland from overseas, including goods from maritime countries of Europe, the list of which was published in the Journal Officiel of the French Republic on November 15, 1915, and March 4, 1916, they should be accompanied by a certificate, issued by the representatives of the Swiss government and attesting their consignment to the S. S. S.;

Whereas, the goods found on board the steamer Manuel Espaliu constituted by their nature, on the one hand (cork, soap), articles of absolute contraband of war, on the other hand (canned vegetables), articles of conditional contraband of war, according to the provisions of the aforementioned notifications of October 14, 1915, and April 27, 1916;

Whereas, they are included on the lists, likewise aforementioned, of articles whose final destination to Switzerland should be attested by a certificate of consignment to the S. S. S., in order that the sincerity of said destination may be fully recognized;

Whereas, in reality these goods were not accompanied by said certificate;

Whereas, under these conditions of irregular shipment said goods have been declared seized, according to the official report of June 13, 1916; *

Whereas, while the irregular conditions under which said cargoes were found on board the Manuel Espaliu at the time of the search could at that time be regarded as a sufficient cause for seizure, it is now proved that the goods were actually consigned to the Swiss Economic Supervision Company and that consequently they are not intended for the enemy;

Whereas, the seizure cannot therefore be declared valid;

Whereas, in compliance with the provisions regarding seizures, as laid down by the Ruling of December 23, 1705, all expenses connected with the prize must be borne by the released cargo;

Decides:

The seizure effected on June 13, 1916, of goods found on board the steamer Manuel Espaliu as per Bills of Lading No. 2, 4, 10 and 13, is

declared null, and all expenses connected with said seizure are to be charged to the account of said goods.

These goods, or in case of requisition, the price of their requisition or of their sale, will be returned to the rightful claimants upon receipt of proof establishing their claims. *

* 49

SECTION 6.-VISIT AND SEARCH

THE MARIA.

(High Court of Admiralty, 1799. 1 C. Rob. 340.)

Sir W. SCOTT.50 This ship was taken in the British Channel in company with several other Swedish vessels sailing under convoy of a Swedish frigate, having cargoes of naval stores and other produce of Sweden on board, by a British squadron under the command of Commodore Lawford.

The facts attending the capture did not sufficiently appear to the court upon the original evidence; it therefore directed further information to be supplied, and by both parties.

The additional information now brought in consists of several at

49 In The Lupus, Entscheidungen des Oberprisengerichts in Berlin, 1918, 377 (1917), the Supreme Prize Court of Berlin held that a cargo of pyrites carried upon the Norwegian steamer Lupus, en route to Amsterdam, was subject to confiscation, although the bills of lading were to the order of the Netherlands Oversea Trust Company.

The court was of opinion that if the capture had been made by a British, instead of a German man-of-war, the British Prize Court would have held that the pyrites, from which sulphuric acid could be made, would not have remained in Holland, but would have been exported to Germany. In addition, the court was of opinion that the Netherlands Oversea Trust Company had "become entangled in obligations to such an extent that they were compelled under any circumstances to comply with a request of England to relinquish to England goods imported into Dutch ports, and to subject these goods to the jurisdiction of the English Prize Court."

It would appear from the case of The Lupus, that the parties to the World War of 1914-1918, started from the standpoint that enemy property-whether it be of enemy origin or enemy owned-is liable to capture, and that it does not cease to be so liable until it has reached the jurisdiction of the country of ultimate destination; that the interposition of a neutral country is immaterial; that the voyage from the port of departure to the country of ultimate destination is in the nature of a continuous voyage, however broken or interrupted by passage through or from a neutral port or country, and that therefore the property is subject to capture in any part of its voyage provided it is not at the time of capture within a neutral jurisdiction.

The principle of continuous voyage, more appropriately called ultimate destination, which had hitherto been principally applied to shipments from a neutral country, was extended to shipments from an enemy port or country. The neutral property of a contraband nature with ultimate destination to the enemy or enemy property with an ultimate destination to a neutral country were alike subject to capture.

50 Statement of facts and parts of the opinion are omitted.

testations made on the part of the captors, and of a copy of the instructions under which the Swedish frigate sailed, transmitted to the King's proctor from the office of the British Secretary of State for the Foreign Department. On the part of the Swedes some attestations and certificates have been introduced, but all of them applying to collateral matter, none relating immediately to the facts of the capture. On this evidence the court has to determine this most important question; for its importance is very sensibly felt by the court.

In forming that judgment, I trust that it has not escaped my anxious recollection for one moment, what it is that the duty of my station calls for from me, namely, to consider myself as stationed here, not to deliver occasional and shifting opinions to serve present purposes of particular national interest, but to administer with indifference that justice which the law of nations holds out, without distinction, to independent states, some happening to be neutral and some to be belligerent. The seat of judicial authority is, indeed, locally here, in the belligerent country, according to the known law and practice of nations; but the law itself has no locality. It is the duty of the person who sits here to determine this question exactly as he would determine the same question if sitting at Stockholm; to assert no pretensions on the part of Great Britain which he would not allow to Sweden in the same circumstances, and to impose no duties on Sweden, as a neutral country, which he would not admit to belong to Great Britain in the same character. If, therefore, I mistake the law in this matter, I mistake that which I consider, and which I mean should be considered, as the universal law upon the question; a question regarding one of the most important rights of belligerent nations relatively to neutrals.

The only special consideration which I shall notice in favor of Great Britain (and which I am entirely desirous of allowing to Sweden in the same or similar circumstances) is, that the nature of the present war does give this country the rights of war, relatively to neutral states, in as large a measure as they have been regularly and legally exercised, at any period of modern and civilized times. Whether I estimate the nature of the war justly, I leave to the judgment of Europe, when I declare that I consider this as a war in which neutral states themselves have an interest much more direct and substantial than they have in the ordinary, limited, and private quarrels (if I may so call them) of Great Britain and its great public enemy. That I have a right to advert to such considerations, provided it be done with sobriety and truth, cannot, I think, reasonably be doubted; and if authority is required, I have authority-and not the less weighty in this question for being Swedish authority-I mean the opinion of that distinguished person, one of the most distinguished which that country (fertile as it has been of eminent men) has ever produced; I mean