« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
like the other officers, in proportion to his rate of pay in the service, even though his tenth be less than the shares of his subordinate officers. (Nott, J. dissenting.)
Swan v. United States, 19 Ct. Cl. 51.
Under said act the terms "vessel and "ship
are synonymous; an
armed torpedo launch is a ship" and her commander "the commander of a single ship." (Ibid.)
Capture of enemy's property does not increase naval pay proper, but enlarges the right to compensation, prize money being given as an inducement to enter the service and perform its duties with bravery and fidelity.
Cole v. United States (1899), 34 Ct. Cl. 446.
Section 4625, Revised Statutes, relating to prizes, refers only to property actually captured, and not to property which has been destroyed without ever having been actually seized or in the possession of the forces of the United States. It was therefore held that the officers and men of the U. S. S. Hawk were not entitled to prize money under that section for the destruction of the Spanish steamer Alphonso XII. But it was suggested that if the steamer, which was publicly reported to have been "in use as an auxiliary vessel of the Spanish navy," was, at the time of her destruction, "a ship or vessel of war belonging to Spain, or in her service," a claim for bounty might, perhaps, be made under section 4635, Revised Statutes.
Griggs, At. Gen., Aug. 2, 1898, 22 Op. 171.
Questions as to bounty under section 4635, Revised Statutes, should be submitted to a judicial tribunal, and the Court of Claims has authority to hear and determine such questions.
Boyd, Act. At. Gen., Sept. 2, 1898, 22 Op. 205.
In determining whether the Spanish vessels sunk or destroyed at Manila were of inferior or superior force to the American vessels engaged in the battle, for the purpose of fixing the amount of bounty to be awarded under Revised Statutes, section 4635, the land batteries, mines, and torpedoes not controlled by those in charge of the enemy's vessels, but which supported those vessels, are to be excluded altogether from consideration, and the size and armaments of the vessels sunk or destroyed, together with the number of men upon them, are alone to be regarded.
Dewey v. United States (1900), 178 U. S. 510, 20 S. Ct. 981.
4. ABOLITION OF PRIZE MONEY AND BOUNTY.
"And all provisions of law authorizing the distribution among captors of the whole or any portion of the proceeds of vessels, or any property hereafter captured, condemned as prize, or providing for the payment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed."
Act of March 3, 1899, c. 413, entitled "An act to reorganize and increase the efficiency of the personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps of the United States," 30 Stats. 1004, 1007.
See Kleen, De la Contrebande de Guerre; Manceaux, De la Contrebande de Guerre.
The trade of neutrals with belligererts in articles not contraband is absolutely free, unless interrupted by blockade.
The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28.
Contracts for the 'transportation of contraband articles are enforce
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. American Trading Co. (1904), 195 U. S. 439, 465.
The question of contraband "is a source and a pretext for much vexation to the commerce of neutrals, whilst it is of little real importance to the belligerent parties. The reason is obvious. In the
present state of the arts throughout Europe every nation possesses, or may easily possess, within itself the faculty of supplying all the ordinary munitions of war. Originally the case was different, and for that reason only it would seem that the articles in question [i. e., the lists embraced in the treaties] were placed on the contraband list. The articles which alone fall within the original reason are naval stores; and if these are expunged from the list of contraband, it is manifest that an abolition of the list altogether would be a change in the law of nations to which little objection ought to be made."
Mr. Madison, Sec. of State, to Mr. Armstrong, min. to France, March 14, 1806, MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, VI. 322.
The doctrine of contraband "should be rigidly confined within the narrowest limits compatible with an honest belligerent policy; and in the opinion of this Government those limits ought to be made to include only arms and munitions of war. It found its way
into the code of nations, when the means of supply were much more restricted than at present, and before the progress of improvement had placed it in the power of almost every nation to provide itself with whatever it may want either for offensive or defensive operations. . . . The dictum upon which this whole doctrine rests is, that a neutral nation ought not to supply a belligerent power with articles which may serve him in the direct prosecution of hostilities.
The discussion which at this time is going on respecting the military character of coal, and whether it is now excluded from general commerce as contraband of war, is a striking illustration of the tendency to enlarge this power of prohibition and seizure, and of the necessity of watching its exercise with unabated vigilance. . . . It adds to the complications arising out of the uncertainty in which this subject is involved, that there is no common tribunal empowered to decide between the independent parties, when a belligerent nation, interested in the measure, undertakes to add a new article to the catalogue of contraband, upon the assumption that it has changed its character from a peaceable to a warlike one, in consequence of a change in the objects to which it may be applied, either by a revolution in the mode of conducting war, or by improvements in the implements used in its prosecution. The pretension of a prerogative on the part of sovereigns, whether in peace or war, if indeed any such exist, to decide these questions, except so far as relates to their own subjects, is utterly repudiated by the United States."
Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, min. to France, No. 190, June 27, 1859, MS. Inst. France, XV. 426.
See note under an extract from this instruction, supra, § 1195.
"I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 25th ultimo, wherein you present certain reasons which lead your Government to ask that this Government, in common with other powers, consent to a general prohibition of the passage of the Dardanelles or the Black Sea by vessels carrying dynamite.
"In the form in which the request is presented, this Government would not feel justified in giving this measure its unqualified sanetion, inasmuch as it is founded not so much on the inherent danger to life and property of the explosives named while in transit as on the possible ulterior wish to which they may be put. I need scarcely adduce argument to show that such a course is tantamount to enlarg ing the international definition of contraband of war, and making the substances in question contraband also in time of peace. To this proposition the United States could not assent, either as a general principle or in its practical application to a class of explosives whose employment is widely extending in all operations of mining and tunneling, and which, rightly used, plays an important part in the internal development of the natural resources of nearly all countries.
"If, however, the question presented were one of regulating the conveyance of a dangerous detonating or inflammable substance, so that its transit might be unaccompanied by peril to life, this Government could find no objection to such a course. Our own laws (sections 4472, 5353, and 5354 of the Revised Statutes) prohibit the carriage of such explosives upon any vessel or vehicle whatever used for the conveyance of passengers to the United States or between the States and Territories; and section 5354 especially considers the death of any person when caused by the transit or attempted transit of such explosives as entailing upon the offenders the penalty for manslaughter. Our statutes, however, do not absolutely prohibit, but simply regulate, the conveyance of explosives.
"This Government will be happy to consider any scheme for the regulation of the conveyance of explosives through the straits of the Porte, and if it shall not appear that the rights of peaceful and legitimate commerce or of transit through waters by which the world's commerce must necessarily pass are interfered with or prohibited, your Government may rest assured that no objection will be made to the enforcement of such legislation.”
Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Aristarchi Bey, Turkish min., Dec. 4.
Mr. King's correspondence in 1799 as to contraband is given in 2 Am. State-
Mr. Seward's report of Jan. 26, 1863, giving correspondence in relation to