PROSPECTIVE PRIZES

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2257, 17 September 1914, Page 6

PROSPECTIVE PRIZES

BIG HAULS LIKELY RECOGNISED RULES OF CAPTURE , RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS Unless all signs err (says an America! .exchange), the blue-jackets ol tlie contending European fleets will make the [ biggust hauls of prize-money since the good old privateering days of the Napoleonic wars. Already scores of ships have been seized or captured, and -while international law governing the seizure or capture of enemy's vessels on the iiigli seas or in hostile. ports seems to be somewhat vague in actual application, it is fairly certain that a good many of these prizes will be condemned by file Admiralty prize courts especially appointed for such cases. The proceeds will tiien bo divided pro rata among the captors,. according to some recognised scale of award to be fixed by each government. Prize-money and bounty are no longer awarded in the Ujiited States navy. Privateering, it is scarcely necessary to point out, hai been abolished by all the great Powers. An International Court. Very little .is known'hero (New York) of. the mles' governing distribution of prize-money in foreign navies. At the British Consulate it was stated that, failing more definite information, it was ,i understood that no prizes would be ■' sold until after the war, and that then the money accruing from such prizes . would be distributed according to a prearranged schedulo among the captors of the several vessels so sold. It is interesting to note hero that all of the contending Powers were signatories to .. the Hague Convention of li) 07 .for the - establishment of an International Prize Court, to which appeals may' be taken from the decisions of the prize courts of the captor nations. This convention prescribed that the court should consist of iifteen members, eight" of whom should always be delegates of the ' United States, Great Britain, Krance, Germany, Austria-Hungary,. Russia, Italy, and Japan, while the other seven should be. chosen'turn by < turn, from a list of the minor nations. ■" Appeals to this tribunal from the judgment of the national courts may be based upon the ground that the judgment. was wrong .in fact or in law. Appeals By NSutrals. An appeal may be taken by a neutral Power, if tlie judgment of the prize court injures its property or the property of its nationals or if the capture of .an enemy's vessel has'taken place' in its waters; by a .neutral individual, if the judgment of the prize court has injured his property—with the proviso, however, that his 1 Government may for-, bid him to take an. appeal or else may ■ take the appeal, itself; and by an individual subject or citizen of an ene'my Power, if the prize courts's: decision has injured him because his property consisted of cargo in, a neutral vessel or because the seizure was in violation, either of the provisions of a convention in force between the belligerent Powers, or of an enactment issued by the belligerent captor. ■The importance of,this last clause may ; be understood when it is considered that the British and German Governments woro signatories to an agreement to permit enemy's ships in their ports a certain time in which to • leave after a declaration of hostilities. Neither of these Powers has yet observed this agreement, although it is understood that negotiations are in proi gress betwon them, through the intermediary of the American Ambassadors at Berlin and London,-for arranging a stated time • in• which all-such captures may be made over. It is fairly certain, of course, that if this is not done, after the war is over, the owners of vessels so seized will carry appeals to the hi- - - ternational Prize Court under the terms of the agreement to which both. Germany and Great Britain were parties. ... Other Rules of the Court. Still.other_ rules governing appeal to the International Prize Court were es--tablished-by the conference. The municipal law of the belligerent captor shall deoide whether the case may be brought, before the International Court before 1 or after trial by the captor's Prize Court. But if the national courts fail to give -judgment within two years, the case may be carried direct to the International Court finds that a capture was wrongful, it may adjudge damages to the owner of the vessel or cargo, in addition to order the return of t-lie property. Under the law of the United States, the whole \ alue of a. prize was awarded to the captors when the prize was of equal or superior force to the vessel making the capture; but if the prize was of inferior force, then its value was divided equally between the United States and the captors. Thus ,men of , Admiral Dewey's fleet contended that they should be awarded all of the prize money 'and bounty for the destruction of the Spanish fleet at Manila, inasmuch as it was superior to them, taking into account the guns of the forts and shore-batteries and the torpedo fields, under whose protection it lay. But the courts held that the law ap- ' plied strictly to the force of hostile warships and not to any accessory aid thoy received from- the shore; and that, fleet for fleet, the Spaniards had been at a disadvantage. Consequently, the crews of Dewey's ships received only one-half of the bounty money and. pro- . ceeds arising from the sale of the wrecked Spanish war-ships. Apportioning Prize-money. The commander of a vessel was entitled to one-tenth t of the prize-money, tho officers under him received shares in proportion to their pay, and a fixed proportion was allotted to seamen. In the case of joint capture by the army, and navy, it was judged lhat. no prizemoney should be awarded, while if a vessel made a capture in company witli other ships, the crews of tho entire squadron shared in tlio: prize-money. Filially, in 1899, it was enacted that "all provisions of law authorising the distribution among captors o ftho whole' or any portion of tho proceeds of ves--sels, or any property hereafter captured, condemned as prize, or providing for tho pajment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed." The United States has endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to induce. all the maritime nations to consent to' permit enemy's commerce to ply undisturbed ia time of war. No other Power, however, can be persuaded to look at the >. matter from suoh a broad point of new. .

THE BOMB-DROPPERS

ZEPPELIN'S DEADLY WORK. By TMesrrdph—Prres Association—OoujTisht . ("Times" and Sydney "Sun" Services.) London, September 15. N Dr. L. L. Seaman, of I\ow York, who has returned from Antwerp, says that a Zeppelin dropped five bombs on jtugust 25 above the Royal Palace. It undoubtedly intended to destroy , the Royal Family whilst they wero asleep. Ono bomb cut a man in halves and injured a second. Another bomb passed through a . house, where several people were sleeping, into a cellar. The inmates wero dug out of the dobris, and were found to be only scratched.