Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

pletion of the service with the fleet. The British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, section 8, is very definite as relates to such service and its penalties.

If any person within Her Majesty's dominions, without the license of Her Majesty, does any of the following acts, that is to say

(3) Equips any ship with intent or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state; or

(4) Dispatches, or causes or allows to be dispatched, any ship with intent or knowledge, or having reasonable cause to believe that the same shall or will be employed in the military or naval service of any foreign state at war with any friendly state;

Such person shall be deemed to have committed an offense against this act, and the following consequences shall ensue:

(1) The offender shall be punishable by fine and imprisonment, or either of such punishments, at the discretion of the court before which the offender is convicted; and imprisonment, if awarded, may be either with or without hard labor.

(2) The ship in respect of which such offense is committed, and her equipment, shall be forfeited to Her Majesty.

The interpretation clause, section 30, defines "naval service" and "equipping" as follows:

"Naval service" shall, as respects a person, include service as a marine, employment as a pilot in piloting or directing the course of a ship of war or other ship, when such ship of war or other ship is being used in any military or naval operation, and any employment whatever on board a ship of war, transport, storeship, privateer, or ship under letters of marque; and as respects a ship include any user of a ship as a transport, storeship, privateer, or ship under letters of marque.

66

'Equipping" in relation to a ship shall include the furnishing a ship with any tackle, apparel, furniture, provisions, arms, munitions, or stores, or any other thing which is used in or about a ship for the purpose of fitting or adapting her for the sea or for naval service, and all words relating to equipping shall be construed accordingly.

"Ship and equipment" shall include a ship and everything in or belonging to a ship.

The neutral can not plead his nationality as an exemption for the consequences of an act which is in its nature hostile.

[blocks in formation]

(c) Conclusion as to treatment of neutral collier serving enemy fleet. The collier has therefore been engaged in unneutral service. This service is not to be confused with the carriage of contraband, which is a commercial undertaking and renders the goods liable to seizure, but the service of the collier is unlike in nature, in intent, and in penalty. As the neutral agent has identified himself with the belligerent, the United States is justified in treating him as a belligerent.

The regulations in regard to the liability for transport service for the enemy hold that the penalties extend to the ship and personnel. The liability for the breach of blockade remains till the completion of the return voyage. The liability of the collier under consideration should certainly not be considered as deposited with its cargo. If it were thus regarded a fleet of neutral colliers would be of greater advantage to a belligerent than a fleet of its own. The neutral colliers while bound for the fleet might be liable to confiscation, etc., as would the belligerent colliers, but after discharging the coal and leaving the fleet would not, as would the belligerent colliers, be liable to seizure. Therefore the neutral collier engaged in belligerent service could go on from port to port incurring liability only when loaded with coal and bound for the enemy. Such a contention would seem hardly reasonable when by domestic law such service is penalized.

In Situation Vi (c), therefore, when a war vessel of the United States overtakes a neutral collier returning to its home port after accompanying the fleet of its enemy, State X, the United States commander should not hesitate to seize the collier and send it with its crew to a prize court, or, if necessary, to treat it immediately as an enemy vessel might be treated under similar conditions.

Conclusion. (a) The commander of the United States war vessel, unless certain that the neutral vessel breaking the blockade is exempt from seizure, should send the neutral vesel to the nearest prize court.

(b) The neutral merchant vessel on her return voyage is not liable to seizure because of carriage of contraband

on the outward voyage and should not be detained for such cause.

(c) If a war vessel of the United States overtakes a neutral vessel which has accompanied the enemy fleet as a collier before the neutral vessel has completed her voyage by return to the port of departure or to a home port, the commander of the United States war vessel should not hesitate to seize the collier and send it with its crew to a prize court, or, if necessary, to treat it immediately as an enemy vessel might be treated under similar conditions.

SITUATION VII.

The commander of a war vessel of the United States while cruising off the coast of State X is requested by a duly authorized agent of State X to prevent a merchant vessel of the United States from taking contraband into a port of State X which happens to be near and to be in the hands of insurgents. The agent of State X claims that the merchant vessel has sailed from the United States in violation of neutrality laws.

What action should the commander take?

SOLUTION.

The commander of the United States war vessel should decline to interfere to prevent the carriage of goods by a merchant vessel of the United States even though the goods are bound to a port in the hands of an insurgent and he is requested to interfere by the authorities of the parent state.

NOTES ON SITUATION VII.

The United States law. The attempt has frequently been made to bring the sale and carriage of contraband under the neutrality laws of the United States; particularly has been cited section 5283 of the Revised Statutes:

Every person who, within the limits of the United States, fits outs and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm, or procures to be fitted out and armed, or knowingly is concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming, of any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, or who issues or delivers a commission within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, for any vessel, to the intent that she may be so employed, shall be deemed guilty

127

of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than three years. And every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores, which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited; one-half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States.

Opinions of Mr. Bayard.-In 1885, a period of numerous insurrections, Mr. Bayard, in a communication to the Colombian minister, who protested against certain shipments of arms from the United States, said:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, March 25, 1885. SIR: On the receipt of your note of the 17th instant complaining that certain ordinary merchant vessels have sailed, or are about to sail, from the port of New York having on board as part of their cargoes boxes of arms and ammunition intended for the purpose of assisting armed rebels who are now resisting on the Atlantic coast of Colombia the authority of that Republic, I did not fail to communicate the subject of its contents to the proper authorities.

I now have the honor to inform you that it appears from a recent communication from my colleague, the Attorney-General, that the United States attorney at the port of New York has been directed to be vigilant in enforcing those statutory provisions which apply to the circumstances in which Colombia is unhappily involved.

In this connection I deem it proper to invite your attention to the fact that the existence of a rebellion in Colombia does not authorize the public officials of the United States to obstruct ordinary commerce in arms between citizens of this country and the rebellious or other parts of the territory of the Republic of Colombia. It is a well-established rule of international law that the allowance of such commerce is no breach of duty toward the friendly government whose enemies may thus be supplied with

arms.

As no charge is made that the vessels in question are armed vessels intended for the use of the rebels mentioned, or that military expeditions are being set on foot in this country against the Republic of Colombia, the duties of this Government are limited to the enforcement of the statutory provisions which apply to such cases.

Accept, etc.,

T. F. BAYARD.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »