PEEPS INTO THE PRIZE COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 4, Issue 96, 15 October 1915, Page 4 (Supplement)

PEEPS INTO THE PRIZE COURT.

SOME NICE POINTS FOR DECISION.

After the lapse of fully half a century —since the days of the Crimean campaign indeed— -& Prize Court has again been set up in London, and though the ocean highways have practically been swept clean of inimical shipping, there still remains work for it to do.

Succinctly stated, the duty of a Prize Court is to satisfy itself and the conscience of the countlry that the seizure, retention, or confiscation of the captured subjects is a valid act. When the interests of neutral countries are involved, as they so often are, in such affairs fair play has to be accorded them, and, for that matter, to the enemy himself. Hence, it is to some extent a court of justice, where the partes concetrned are represented by counsel, and the pros and cons of the case freely argued. But the quibbling points which are wont to frustrate a speedy decision in civil court litigations, are given no encouragement here, though the loser may, if he feels aggrieved by the verdict, appeal against it by the one means left him, the Privy Council. NO PRECEDENTS. Prize Court law in this or any other country is a power unto itself, and is untrammelled with the cast-iron precedents peculiar to civil law. Its findings are as free as the air, and controlled by nothing—not even by its previous decision and a famous) British statesman —Sir Edward Grey, to wit—referred to it very aptly a.s u chaos of opinion. But small blame to anyone if it very often is, as on end ol fine points are forever cropping up, due almost exclusively, to the claims of neutraK When our indefatigable Jack Tars think they have bagged a genuine German 6hip, sailing under some other country's flag, down pounces an insistent neutral and claims the vessel, notwithstanding that her papejis may show her to be mak:ng for a German port. Then the Prize Court becomes furiously busy, for three great issues await decision —Is the cargo to be confiscated, is the sh;p herself to be declared a lawful prize, or is the neutral's claim to be sustained? Nothing shopt of the strongest of strong proof will be required to convert a Prize Court to the latter view. Possession is, we know, nineteen-twen-tieths of prize law. NEUTRAL INTERESTS. But even captures which are admittedly German owned are not reinquished to the victore without a struggle. Non-belligerent subjects may come forward with documentary proof to sflonv that the captured ship is heavily mortgaged and that they, virtually, are the owners. Their claim is not, of course, for the restitution of the vessel, but for a recovery of their advances out of the sale money, a request which is only occasionally grati- ' tied . There was the recent case of the* German merchantman Marie Glaese, which was decided in our Prize Court against the mortgagees, and would even l.ave gone against them had their nationality been British, instead of loreign, for the dictum of the judges was that people who invest money in such risks should be prepared for the chances of war.

Not to be snuffed out, however, a clever attempt was then made to take advantage of a well-established tenet of international law, to the effect that non-contraband goods belonging to a neutral, though carried in a ship flying the enemy's flag, are immune from confiscation. It was, in short, sought to shift the mortgage from the ship herself to the cargo, but after a stiff struggle of words this second attempt also failed. BRITISH FAIRPLAY TO THE RESCUE. Another case which considerably exercised a British Prize Court in this war was that relating to the German sailing ship Chile, captured by us on the high seas exactly one day after war had been declared. As the vessel had come all the way from America, it was quite apparent she had quitted port ere th's country and Germany were in a state of war. Now one of the least ambiguous sections of the Prize Court law is that a merchantman, in such circumstances, is not liable to confiscation. But when the ship's owners, got English counsel to represent them a strange tiling happened. They tripped over another well-defined law in the process. "No man," said the learned judge, "can sue in a British court who is a subject of the enemy unless under special circumstances." However, British fairplay came to the rescue, and a new affidavit was permitted to be lodged, and in the end the Chile was not condemned, but was ojrdered to he detained so that the way might be left open for an exchange of ships to be effected during the course of the war.