DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 321, 7 June 1911, Page 5

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

GERMAN OPINION. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright Berlin, June 5. Admiral von Koester describes the approval of the Declaration of London by the Imperial Conference as a gratifying event. The Tageblatt considers that ratification is assured, and says that this is the only substantial progress ever made in regulating naval warfare. BRITAIN BETTER OFF. Received 7, 1 a.m. London, June 6. Lord Lindley, in a letter to the newspapers, states: "Careful study of the Declaration convinced me, firstly, that we are no worse off as belligerents or neutrals if ratified; secondly, that if ratified we on the whole arc much better off than if unratified, but the Declaration should be ratified upon a clear understanding of its interpretation." WHAT THE DECLARATION IS. ITS PROVISIONS OUTLINED. The Declaration of London is a code of international law in maritime matters drawn up by the representatives of Britain, Germany, the United States, Austria, France,' Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Holland, for the use of the International Prize Court at the Hague, established by The Hague Conference of 11)07. The Declaration was signed in February, 1009. Before it can come into force, so far as Britain is concerned, Parliament must pass the Naval Prize Bill, subordinating the judicature of the British Prize Courts and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the International Prize Court. The Naval Prize Bill was introduced in June of last year, and has been again laid before Parliament this session. An important statement on the Declaration of London was made recently by Mr. T. McKinnon Wood, M.P., who explained the existing position and the changes to bo brought about by the Declaration. These may be summarised as follows: PRESENT POSITION. Every country has its own sea law, which it may change at any moment as it pleases. Each country's sea law differs from that of every other country. Every country has its own Prize Courts. The Prize Court of the country which captures a ship decides whether [ the capture is valid. There is no appeal j to an independent Court. If we are dissatisfied, we can only protest or go to war.

Every foreign country may declare food and raw materials of all kinds absolute contraband—i.e., when it is at war with us it may stop our getting food or raw materials in neutral ships, either direct or via a near neutral port and when we arc neutral it may stop our sending food or raw materials to a belligerent.

WHAT inE POSITION WILT, BE. There will be one universal system of sea law. It will be law for the prize Courts of every country. It may be changed only by international agreement. There will be an appeal from the Prize Court of any country to an international Prize Court. The International Court will contain no fewer than nine of the greatest jurists in the world. The eight Great Powers will always have judges in the Court, so that its rulings will be absolutely impartial. Thero will be three classes of commodities—those which can never be captured from a neutral, those which can always be captured from a neutral, and those which can be captured only under special circumstances. One-third of our commerce, including all important raw materials, will be on the freo list. Food carried in neutral ships will be immune from capture, unless it is intended for the armed forces or a Government Department of a country at war. When we are at war food may be brought safely in neutral ships to Antwerp or Rotterdam, and we shall then be able to convey it across in our own ships. In other words, (he ocean will be absolutely open for the carriage of food supplies, and we shall have to guard only the narrow seas. SOME OBJECTIONS. The strongest objections urged against the Declaration are that: 1. It permits, as at present worded, the capture and destruction of foodstuffs shipped in neutral vessels to any port of Great Britain, and thus gravely imperils the food supply of this country in time of war. The result of this, in the the London Chamber of Commerce, will be "a verv serious increase in the cost, of food, with dangerous consequences." The British Government in the past always maintained that foodstuffs were only liable to capture when proceeding to a hostile fleet or a beleaguered fortres*. 2. It admits the principle of the destruction of neutral prizes. That is to say. it would sanction, in certain conditions, such acts as the sinking of the British steamer Oldhamia by the Russians in 1005.

3. Tt does not contain any provision preventing the conversion of merchantmen into commerce destroyers on the high seas, 4. Tt limits the right, of a blockading force in time of war by forbidding it to capture blockade-runners except within a very narrow zone, and thus hampers possible operations of the British Fleet. THE ARTICLES REFERRED TO. Article 24 referred to by Mr. Fisher's motion, contains the list of articles, "susceptible of use in war as well as for purposes of pence," which "may, without notice, be treated as contraband of war, under the name of conditional contraband." The list includes fourteen items: Foodstuffs; forage and grain; clothing, etc.; bullion and paper money; vehicles of all kinds; boats and docks: railway and telegraph material: balloons and flying machines; fuel and lubricants: all kinds of powder and explosives; barbed wire and instruments for cutting the same; horseshoes and shoeing materials; harness and saddlery; field glasses; chronometers, and nautical instruments. Article 33 lays down that conditional contraband is liable to capture is destined for the armed forces of an enemy Mate Article 34 provides for capture if •the goods are consigned to enemy eontractors, etc.

Articles 48 to "A deal with Hie sinking of neutral vessels. Article 4S of the Declaration declares that captured neu-. tral vessels may not be sunk, but "must bo taken into such port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture." Article 40 sanctions the sinking of neutral prizes as follows: "A neutral vessel which has been captured by a belligerent warship, and which would be liable to condemnation, may be destroyed if taking her into port would involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the

success of the operations in which she. is engaged at the time," and it should be added that a neutral vessel is liable to he condemned if she is carrying more than half a cargo of contraband goods reckoned either by value, weight, volume, or freight. 1 *■