THE EORUS At the supreme prize court, the 29th day of March of the fourth year of Taisho (A. D. 1915). Baron Junjiro Hosokawa, Litt. D., president, the supreme prize court; Baron Koroku Tsutsuki, J. D. counsellor, the supreme prize court; Genji Baba, counsellor, the supreme prize court; Joichiro Tsuru; counsellor, the supreme prize court; Hideo Yokota, J. D. counsellor, the supreme prize court; Kajkuichi Murakamu, counsellor, the supreme prize court; Sakuei Takahashi, J. D. counsellor, the supreme prize court; Jujiro Sakata, counsellor, the supreme prize court; Chōzo Koike, counsellor, the supreme prize court; Mayuki Akiyama, counsellor, the supreme prize court; Jōji Matsumoto, J. D. counsellor, the supreme prize court. THE SEIZURE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE GERMAN Jan. 9, 1915 (Prize court at Sasebo) DECISION Examining the statement of the procurator concerning the seizure of the German sailing vessel Eorus, the court renders the decision as follows: The sailing vessel Eorus is decreed seized. FACTS AND REASONS The sailing vessel under our consideration is a possession of a Yaluit Joint-stock Co. of Hamburg, Germany, registered at Hamburg. Under German flag, the ship engaged in the transportation of goods among the islands of the southern Pacific. When the state of war was established between this country and Germany on the 23d day of August of the third year of Taisho (A. D. 1914), the ship sailed, without cargo, from the Yaruit Island, of the German Marshall Archipelago, for Honolulu, of the Hawaiian Islands of the United States, apparently in order to avoid capture in a neutral port. It was when the ship was passing a point on the sea on a course 75° west of north near the Diamond Head lighthouse, about 21° 12' 30'' 169 Statement of fact. prize. north latitude; and 157° 55' 30" west longitude, on October 24 of the same year, that she was captured by the H. I. S. Hizen, which sent her to the bottom at a point 7.5 miles southwest of the lighthouse (that is, 7.5 miles from the coast), at 8.09 p. m. (Honolulu standard time), of the same day. The above fact is well established by the document called "Captain's statement," the list of crew, the log book, the certificate of the nationality of the ship, a letter of Jansen Menke, of the branch office of the Yaluit Co., dated September 9, 1914, addressed to Harhachfeldt & Co. another letter of the same person, dated September 3, 1914, addressed to the base of the German Asiatic Fleet, the joint report by Lieut. Bikei Imaizumi and Capt. C. Friedricksen on the seizure, and the report of Capt. Yasukata Kawanami, commander of the H. I. S. Hizen. Destruction of The court is of opinion that a belligerent power can capture any enemy merchantman which navigates in the public sea, knowing the outbreak of war; and it is also a well-established rule of the international law, recognized by the theory and precedents, that the captor can destroy the prize in case it hinders the military action to take the captured ship into the captor's port. Therefore, we are inclined to justify the action of the H. I. S. Hizen which captured the enemy ship as such when the latter was sailing toward Honolulu in order to avoid capture. According to the statement made by Commander Kawanami of the H. I. S. Hizen, his warship was watching the German warship Geier which was sheltering itself in the port of Honolulu, and it was also preventing the northward movement of the powerful enemy fleet. Under these circumstances, it is quite obvious that the effect of the military action might have been hindered, if they transported the prize; therefore it is also lawful that they destroyed it. Hence, the court decrees as stated in the text. At the prize court at Sasebo, the 9th day of January of the fourth year of Taisho (A. D. 1915). Taro Tezuka, president, the prize court at Sasebo; Fushi Inuru, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Otojiro Ito, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Terufusa Hori, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Shunichi Nagaoka, J. D., counsellor the prize court at Sasebo; Yuichiro Kuma, secretary, the prize court at Sasebo. THE CHRISTIAN BOLES THE SEIZURE OF THE NORWEGIAN STEAMSHIP "CHRISTIAN BOLES" AND ITS CARGO (Prize court at Sasebo) Examining the statement of the procurator concerning the seizure of the Norwegian steamship Christian Boles and its cargo, the court renders the decision as follows: TEXT The steamship and its cargo on board should be released. FACTS AND REASONS fact. 171 The steamship under our consideration is a merchant- Statement of man belonging to a Christian Boles Co. of Norway, and is registered at Bergen, Norway. Under the Norwegian flag, it has been engaged in transportation of goods. The said company has rented it to the J. J. Moore Co., of San Francisco, United States of America, which in turn rented the same to the Robert Dollar Co., of San Francisco, United States of America. Under that contract, the ship has been engaged in navigation between Shanghai, China, and the Pacific ports of the United States. On the 27th day of January of the fourth year of Taisho (A. D. 1915) the ship put to sea from Shanghai for San Pedro, United States of America, laden with cotton oil, cowhides, eggs, poppy seeds, wool, pig iron, and other commodities. It carried aboard a G. Blumenstock, a reserve surgeon of the German Army, status of supercargo. ice. Arriving at Kobe, via Karatsu, Japan, on February 1, Unneutral serv. and being laden with corn and other goods, the ship was searched by the H. I. S. Tatsuta, and on the 5th of the same month it was declared seized on the grounds that the ship had aboard a man who most likely could help the military affairs against our country; that the captain's statement did not agree with the log book of the ship; and that the log book was disarranged. The above facts are clearly established by the report of the acting commander, Saisuke Koizumi, H. I. J. N., lieutenant of the H. I. S. Tatsuta, the examinations of Capt. J. Hiller, the crew, and G. Blumenstock, the certificate of nationality of the ship, the certificate of registration of the ship, the list of crew, the charter party, the log book, the inventory, and the bill of lading. The procurator urges that the capture of the said steamship was lawful, but that the ship and its cargo should be released immediately. Suspicion not well founded. Vessel restored. The court is of opinion that the captain did not present all the lists of crew when searched; and even those presented later do not coincide with the actual staff; moreover, the records are disarranged; and the captain's statement differs from the list of crew. It was clearly learned by the dispatch from our consul general at Shanghai to the commander of the H. I. S. Tatsuta that one L. Belnasconie of Switzerland, registered in the list of crew as a supercargo has been dead for some four months. Again it is plain fact that the very ship secretly carried Von Hinsze, the German minister to China, under the false name of W. Rogers when it sailed on December 5, 1914, from Everett, United States of America, to Shanghai. Under these circumstances, and judging from this man's conduct it is quite natural that the acting commander of the H. I. S. Tatsuta suspected him as a German officer in command of the ship in behalf of Germany for her military aim. Therefore, we consider that the capture of the ship and its cargo was lawful. Despite all these facts it is the opinion of this court that the ship and its cargo should be released immediately on the following grounds: Because the difference in the registered and actual number of the crew was only due to the fact that some of the crew went ashore at Karatsu on January 30this fact was not reported to the searching officers: Because the person who assumed the name Belnasconie was really a German surgeon, a reserve German Army surgeon, who had been practicing medicine in Shanghai, and was returning home in order to join the military force of his country, and traveled under a false name in order to avoid detention by the British authorities but was not commanding the ship for belligerent purposes; and, Because the cargo on board is not contraband of war. We decide, therefore, as stated in the text. At the prize court at Sasebo, the 26th day of February of the fourth year of Taisho (A. D. 1915). Taro Tezuka, president, the prize court at Sasebo; Fushi Inuru, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Thunichi Nagaska, J. D., counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Kai Matsuoka, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; On Hirose, counsellor, the prize court at Sasebo; Katsuji Kitamura, secretary, the prize court at Sasebo. MIXED CLAIMS COMMISSION-UNITED STATES AND GERMANY OPINION IN THE “LUSITANIA" CASES November 1, 1923 (Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, p. 17) PARKER, Umpire, delivered the opinion of the commission, the American and German commissioners concurring in the conclusions: Statement of These cases grow out of the sinking of the British ocean liner Lusitania, which was torpedoed by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland May 7, 1915, during case. the period of American neutrality. Of the 197 American citizens aboard the Lusitania at that time, 69 were saved and 128 lost. The circumstances of the sinking are known to all the world, and as liability for losses sustained by American nationals was assumed by the Government of Germany through its note of February 4, 1916, it would serve no useful purpose to rehearse them here. mission. Applying the rules laid down in Administrative Decisions Nos. I and II handed down this date,' the commis- Rules of comsion finds that Germany is financially obligated to pay to the United States all losses suffered by American nationals, stated in terms of dollars, where the claims therefor have continued in American ownership, which losses have resulted from death or from personal injury or from loss of, or damage to, property sustained in the sinking of the Lusitania. This finding disposes of this group of claims, save that there remain to be considered (1) issues involving the nationality of each claimant affecting the commission's jurisdiction, and (2) the measure of damages to be applied to the facts of each case. 1 Reference is made to Administrative Decision No. I for the definition of the terms used herein. We are here dealing with a group of cases all growing out of a single catastrophe. As it is manifestly of paramount importance that the same rules of decision shall govern the disposition of each and all of them, whether disposed of by agreement between the two commissioners or in the event of their disagreement by the umpire, this opinion announcing such rules is, at the request of the two commissioners, prepared by the umpire, both commissioners concurring in the conclusions. The principles and rules here laid down will, where applicable, govern the American and German agents and their respective counsel in the preparation and presentation of all claims. |