GERMANY AND SWEDEN

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 286, 22 August 1918, Page 7

GERMANY AND SWEDEN

RECIPROCITY TRADING AND THE BRITISH REPRISALS ORDER

Questions of groat imporlaiwo wore '•aisedn,lho.J!ritishPriJcourt Wl y upon what is known as the Hop, Order ot February Hi, YM7. Tho AI torSi P^ tlo^i ll Smilh, KU, M.J.. said flia!, Iho cases of (ho Duleh *uip, Leonora and Herinina, and certain ouedish fiups. raised broad questions of law J.ho Court would be aware that hweden had boon j u ihe ]~,|j ß ( ~ nig considerable quantities of iron onto (rormaiiy for manufacture into munitions and thq export of this iron ore !.i the part of Sweden, in the view of tho authorities of this countrv, had been paid for by coal that had been consigned by Germany cither from her own mines or, what was the same thing, the mines timer her control in the occupied parts nt Lelgiuni. Tho facts in this case were not in serious controversy. Tho ca=o turned upon (ho second Order-iii-Council "fJ'obruary K, 1017. The Court had a firmed tho previous Order in tho case o tho steamship Stigstng, and ho understood that the Order of February ifi, Mi, was now to bo challenged on various grounds.. Eo understood .that it would bo contended that, in spite of the notorious circumstances of the Gorman occupation of Belgium, coals which the Germans had for their own purposes caused to be exported to Sweden were not to bo trt-ited in the words of the Order-in-Council as "goods of. enemy origin." The Leonora was a Dutch ship of about 1555 tons gross register, she was built in 1015, and tho Crown aSked for the condemnation of tho vessel and her cargo of coal, under the Order-in-Council of February liL 191 . 7, ''' lle sni P was chartered in July, 1317, by G. and L. Beijcrs, A/B, an import and export company in Stockholm, whoso agents at Rotterdam were the Coat trading Company, for the carriago of coal from Rotterdam to Stockholm. The charterers had done a largo trade in importing coal during tho war, and had practically established a monopoly for the sale of Belgian coal in Sweden, and had done a good deal to promote the German coal trade with Sweden. The Coal Trading Company were at Rotterdam, and they were the agents in Holland of the AYesiphalian Coal Syndicate, and wero under tho control of German directors. After dealing with what h© described as certain exceptional terms in the charier parly, the Attornoy-Gcneral said the Leonora sailed about August 17, 11)17. She was captured and taken to Harwich, and seized us prize on August L' 2. According to tho evidenco of William Oatlender, tho I master of the Leonora, which had been ' taken in September, 1917, before the President, a permit was secured from the Dutch Government for the ship to voyage from Rotterdam to Stockholm, and to go from there to Hernosand and return direct to Holland. AA'hen ho was proceeding to Stockholm a British tor-iiedo-boat came alongside, and he was taken to Harwich. Ho believed that tho coal that was sent from Rotterdam to Sweden camo from Belgium. The Attor-ney-General added that in tho rase of tlio 1/eonora claims had been put in by the shipowners, the N. V. Stoomvaart Alantschanpig Leonora, Iho charterers, and tho Stockholm Gas and Electricity Works, tho latter claiming (o havo bought tho coal from the charterers Sir H. Earlc Richards, K.C., intimated that ho did not propose lo challenge that the coal came from the Belgian collieries ;

in the part occupied by the Germans. Reciprocity Trading. The Attorney-General said it was tho view of tho Grown that Sweden and Germany had carried oir a sort of reciprocity trade with direct warlike purposes, and tho Court would rememter that, coineideiilly with the growth of the illegalities of the German maritime campaign, the British Government had been compelled to make Orders-in-Council to deal with the situation created. The Or-der-in-Coun'cil said, among other things, that "any vessel carrying goods when on enemy destination or of enemy origin shall be liable to capture slid condemnation in respect of the carriage of such goods." Dealing with the position of neutrals ns created by the conduct of the Germans, Sir I'rederick said (he German policy had been to destroy ships, to murder tho crews, and to strangle complete ly the trade of this country bv terrorising and bullying neutrals. "The neutrals might in one caso say they intended to disregard this illegal warfare and carrv on their trade and take the consequence, or they might not be strong enough to fake tho attitude which the United States had taken, of resisting by force of arms. J'lns wits the more heroic attitude but others not able to do this might adopt the policy of making vigorous remonstrances and refusing to trade with Germany. There was the alternative policy of a neutral acquiescing and faking the view that it did not pay (o resist! Nothing need be said about the case where ,-p neutral was strong enough fo adopt the course which tho United States had adopted, because circumstances converted such a neutral into an Allv. But supposing that the whole of Scandinavia and such other nations of the world ns

tho outrages of Germany had still left ncuiral, said: "Jt does not pay anv longor to trade witji Great Britain, anil we do not propose to run the risk." Then, of course, the German policy would have completely succeeded, and would have been unfortunately more successful after three and a half years of war than the German armies had been, because tho only result could have been that this country would no longer prosecute the war, and we would havo to abandon it, with all the consequences that would : follow. It could not be denied, there- ' ore, that the Government of this country was bound to adopt, within the com- -• iwss of international law as hi- ] therto understood, tho most strm- j Rent methods to induce neutrals ' not _to surrender themselves as sub- ' missive creatures to the German menace. ' Any Government that failed to discharge mat duty would deserve the severest ' treatment. One had to try to under- ) stand the principles upon which renri- ' «a s had heretofore been justified, and held to be justified by competent author!- ' lies in international law, and then to [ decide whether the quality of the acts defended hero by the Crown, was n was not covered by the necessary principles ' upon which reprisals had heretofore been ' successfully based.

The Reason for Reprisals, The decree of tho act which might bo successfully justified under tho head of reprisal, ho thought, was conditional upon the quality of the act to which it was a reply. Tho reason why reprisals were admitted at all into tha doctrines of international law appeared clear. If a deviation from the doctrines of international law were not permitted to him who suffered from an admitted breach ot chose doctrines at tho hands of his opponcut, every premium and every advantage would bo ceded to tho law-breaker International law had admitted the do'-trino ol ivpnsals, simply in order that criin-.i might not at one and tho same time be licensed and successful. It miirht he urged that neutrals wero between (he upper and lower grindstone. They had not committed the illcali'n'°l ?/ t! !'™" j| . v - If might be said that I hey lived in a world which was made dangerous and anxious for them by tin) acts of others. Tho doctrine of reprisals had been based on a recognition of tho principlo that, whereas between belligerents tho provocation for reprisal was given and tho act of reprisal adopted, ifho convenience of tho neutral was not a relevant consideration. Inconvenience to tho neutral really depended not on tho liaturo of tho net of reprisal, but on 'tho nature of the net which provoked and justified reprisal. Ono should not be greatly impressed by the statement that neutrals had sustained inconvenience and pecuniary lass. AVo should rather sustain ourselves by reflecting that war had it? compensations—even its financial compensations—for neutrals, If they had suffered in one way, their efforts had. been blessed in another way beyond hope, and, ono would imagine, beyond expectation.