Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

French Instructions, 1870.

115

revêt le caractère d'une peine, et cesse d'être ce qu'elle est en réalité, un moyen de défense employé par le belligérant contre un trafic particulièrement funeste à ses intérêts.

Le navire transporteur sera-t-il lui-même confisqué? Il règne sur ce point dans la doctrine la plus grande indécision, mais il paraît raisonnable d'étendre la confiscation au navire lorsque le transport de la contrebande a lieu à la connaissance de l'armateur ou du patron. Bien que cette mesure paraisse dépasser la limite stricte de la défense, elle est indispensable. Seule, elle permet de donner une sanction à la prohibition du commerce de la contrebande, lorsque le vaisseau n'appartient pas au même propriétaire que la marchandise. Sans prétendre donner à la confiscation du vaisseau un caratère pénal, on aperçoit aisément qu'elle est le seul moyen d'action du belligérant sur les armateurs neutres qui se livrent à ce genre de trafic.

On a quelquefois proposé de remplacer le droit de confiscation par un droit de préemption d'après lequel le belligérant saississant serait simplement autorisé à acheter à leur prix courant dans le lieu de destination les objets de contrebande trouvés à bord des navires neutres. La préemption par elle-même paraît avoir été la première sanction en vigueur, et on cite une ordonnance française de 1543 qui est en effet dans ce sens. Elle fournissait un moyen de tempérer les rigueurs du droit dans les circonstances les plus favorables, par exemple, en cas de contrebande simplement relative. Mais l'usage maritime est généralement contraire à cet adoucissement et on peut craindre en effet qu'il ne soit une sanction bien insuffisante de la prohibition qu'il importe de maintenir. Le droit de préemption ne devra donc être appliqué que s'il est adopté par un traité commun aux deux belligérants et aux neutres intéressés, et aussi peut-être dans une hypothèse particulière que nous rencontrerons un peu plus loin.

En vertu d'une règle générale qui se justifie d'elle-même, les marchandises de contrebande échappent à la confiscation s'il apparaît qu'elles n'ont été mises à bord du vaisseau que pour le service même de sa navigation. (Les lois actuelles de la guerre, p. 325.)

French instructions, 1870.The Instructions Complémentaires issued by France during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870 make mention of the proportion of contraband.

9. Cas le chargement rend le navire neutre saisissable.-Est passible de capture tout navire qui transporte des troupes, des dépêches oficielles ou de la contrebande de guerre pour le compte ou la destination de l'ennemi. Toutefois, si la contrebande de guerre ne se trouve à bord que dans une proportion inférieure aux trois-quarts de la cargaison, vous pouvez, suivant les circonstances, soit retenir le navire lui-même, soit le relâcher, si le capitaine consent à vous remettre tous les objets de contrebande dont il est porteur. (Art. 6 des instructions générales du 25 juillet 1870.)

Ne sont pas réputées contrebande de guerre les armes et les munitions, en quantité telle que le permet la coutume, exclusive ment destinées à la défense du bâtiment, à moins qu'il n'en ait été fait usage pour résister à la visite.

This rule was less severe than that of 1778, which prescribed that

1. Fait défense S. M. à tous armateurs d'arrêter et de conduire dans les ports du royaume les navires des puissances neutres, quand même ils sortiraient des ports ennemis, ou qu'ils y seraient destinés; à l'exception toutefois de ceux qui porteraient des secours à des places bloquées, investies ou assiégées. À l'égard des navires des États neutres qui seraient chargés de marchandises de contrebande destinées à l'ennemi, ils pourront être arrêtés et lesdites marchandises seront saisies et confisquées; mais les bâtiments et le surplus de leur cargaison seront relâchés, à moius que lesdites marchandises de contrebande ne composent les trois-quarts de la valeur du chargement; auquel cas les navires et la cargaison seront confisqués en entier. Se réservant, au surplus, S. M. de révoquer la liberté portée au présent article, si les puissances ennemies n'accordent pas la réciproque dans le délai de six mois à compter de la publication du présent règlement.

English prize cases.—The English prize cases have often been cited as authority and as showing the development of the law in regard to contraband carriage because Great Britain has had such a large carrying trade.

The case of the Ringende Jacob of 1798 shows the attitude of the English court at the end of the eighteenth century. The first and second of the three points raised in this case bear upon the carriage of contraband. After speaking of the contention as to the ownership and character of the property, Lord Stowell says:

Three other grounds, however, have been taken on which it is contended that the vessel is liable to condemnation: First, on account of the use and occupation in which she was employed ; secondly, on account of the contraband nature of the cargo; and thirdly, for violatiug a blockade.

On the former point reference has been made to an ancient treaty (Oct. 21, 1666) between England and Sweden, which forbids the subjects of either power " to sell or lend their ships for English Prize Cases.

117

the use and advantage of the enemies of the other,” and as this prohibition is connected in the same article with the subject of contraband, it is argued that the carrying of contraband articles in the present cargo is such a lending as comes within the meaning of the treaty; but I can not agree to that interpretation. To let a ship on freight to go to the ports of the enemy can not be termed lending but in a very loose sense, and I apprehend the true meaning to have been that they should not give up the use and management of their ships directly to the enemy, or put them under his absolute power and direction. It is, besides, observable that there is no penalty annexed to this prohibition. I can not think such a service as this is will make the vessel subject to confiscation.

But it is said there is a contraband cargo. That there are some contraband articles can not be denied. Hemp, the produce of Russia, exported by a Danish merchant, would be confiscable even under the relaxation which allows neutrals to export that article only where it is of the growth of their own country; but to a Dane hemp is expressly enumerated among the articles of contraband in the Danish treaty (July 4, 1780); and to say that a Dane might traffic in foreign hemp, whilst he is forbidden to export his own, would be to put a construction on that treaty perfectly nugatory. The hemp must certainly be condemned; but I do not know that under the present practice of the law of nations a contraband cargo can affect the ship.

By the ancient law of Europe such a consequence would have ensued; nor can it be said that such a penalty was unjust or not supported by the general analogies of law, for the owner of the ship has engaged it in an unlawful commerce. But in the modern practice of the Courts of Admiralty of this country, and I believe of other nations also, a milder rule has been adopted; and the carrying of contraband articles is attended only with the loss of freight and expenses, except where the ship belongs to the owner of the contraband cargo, or where the simple misconduct of carrying a contraband cargo has been connected with other malignant and aggravating circumstances. (1 C. Robinson, Admiralty Reports, p. 89.)

In the case of the Jonge Tobais in the following year Lord Stowell set forth the accepted doctrine of the liability of the vessel when vessel and contraband cargo belonged to the same person:

Formerly, according to the old practice, this cargo would have carried with it the condemnation of the ship, but in later times this practice has been relaxed and an alteration has been introduced which allows the ship to go free, but subject to the forfeiture of freight on the part of the neutral owner. This applies only to cases where the owners of the ship and cargo are different persons. Where the owner of the cargo has any interest in the ship the whole of his property will be involved in the same sentence of condemnation; for where a man is concerned in an illegal transaction the whole of his property embarked in that transaction is liable to confiscation. (Ibid., p. 329.)

Lord Stowell regards the old rule of condemnation of the vessel for carriage of contraband as having a logical basis but as relaxed in modern practice. In 1801, in the case of the Neutralitet, he says:

The modern rule of the law of nations is, certainly, that the ship shall not be subject to condemnation for carrying contraband articles. The ancient practice was otherwise, and it can not be denied that it was perfectly defensible on every principle of justice. If to supply the enemy with such articles is a noxious act with respect to the owner of the cargo, the vehicle which is instrumental in effecting that illegal purpose can not be innocent. The policy of modern times has, however, introduced a relaxation on this point, and the general rule now is that the vessel does not become confiscable for that act. (3 ibid., p. 294.)

American decisions.The United States courts have, in general, followed the doctrine of the British courts in regard to the carriage of contraband:

According to the modern law of nations, for there has been 'some relaxation in practice from the strictness of the ancient rules, the carriage of contraband goods to the enemy subjects them, if captured in delicto, to the penalty of confiscation, but the vessel and the remaining cargo, if they do not belong to the owner of the contraband goods, are not subject to the same penalty. The penalty is applied to the latter only when there has been some actual cooperation on their part in a meditated fraud upon the belligerents—by covering up the voyage under false papers and with a false destination. This is the general doctrine when the capture is made in transitu, while the contraband goods are yet on board. (Carrington v. The Merchants Insurance Co., 1834, 8 Peters Supreme Court Reports, p. 495.)

Treaty provisions.-Article XVII of the treaty of 1794 (expired by limitation in 1807) between the United States and Great Britain limited the penalty for carriage of contraband to the delay consequent upon prize procedure:

It is agreed that in all cases where vessels shall be captured or detained on just suspicion of having on board enemy's property, or of carrying to the enemy any of the articles which are contra

Treaty Provisions.

119

band of war, the said vessels shall be brought to the nearest or most convenient port; and if any property of an enemy should be found on board such vessel, that part only which belongs to the enemy shall be made prize, and the vessel shall be at liberty to proceed with the remainder without any impediment. And it is agreed that all proper measures shall be taken to prevent delay in deciding the cases of ships or cargoes so brought in for adjudication, and in the payment or recovery of any indemnification adjudged or agreed to be paid to the masters or owners of such ships. (Treaties and Conventions, 1776–1909, vol. 1, p. 601.)

The United States has a number of treaties containing the clause similar to article 18 of the treaty with Brazil of 1828:

The articles of contraband, before enumerated and classified, which may be found in a vessel bound for an enemy's port, shall be subject to detention and confiscation, leaving free the rest of the cargo and the ship, that the owners may dispose of them as they see proper. No vessel of either of the two nations shall be detained on the high seas, on account of having on board articles of contraband, whenever the master, captain, or supercargo of said vessels will deliver up the articles of contraband to the captor, unless the quantity of such articles be so great and of so large a bulk that they can not be received on board the capturing ship without great inconvenience; but in this and all the other cases of just detention the vessel detained shall be sent to the nearest convenient and safe port, for trial and judgment, according such ships. (Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1909, vol. 1, p. 601.) to law. (Ibid., p. 139.)

(See also article 19 of the treaty with Bolivia of 1858; article 19 of treaty with Colombia of 1846.)

Special regulations. In the nineteenth century there were differences, as in early days, in practice in regard to what would make a vessel liable to condemnation for carriage of contraband. Municipal laws and regulations were not uniform. The French rule that if three-fourths of the cargo is contraband the vessel is contaminated does not seem to have gained recognition. A Prussian law of June, 1864, declares a vessel ladened entirely with contraband is good prize. An Austrian decree of the same year is to similar effect. The Russian regulation published in 1900 provided that,

11. Merchant vessels of neutral nationality are subject to confiscation as prizes in the following cases: (1) When the vessels

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »