« ПретходнаНастави »
docks, Proclamation fixing compensation for. December 3, 1918. (No. 1504 A.) State Department. Passports. Message transmitting communication from Secretary of State suggesting that passport-control act of May 22, 1918, be extended for one year after peace shall have been concluded. August 25, 1919. 9 p. (S. doc. 79.) Peace Treaty with Germany. 194 p. (S. doc. 49.) Senate. Protocol to, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919. 8 p. (S. doc. 66.) French and English. Senate. Agreement between United States, Belgium, British Empire, and France, and Germany with regard to military occupation of territories of the Rhine, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919. 7 p. (S. doc. 75.); 17 p. (S. doc. 81.) French and English. Senate. 1919. Provisional draft of economic clauses of, with explanatory headings and marginal comments for use of American delegates, presented to Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by Bernard Baruch. 68 p. (Senate Committee print.) Foreign Relations Committee. Report of conference between members of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and President of United States at White House, August 19, 1919. 56 p. (S. doc. 76.) Foreign Relations Committee. ——. Semi-official summary of treaty as handed to German plenipotentiaries May 7, 1919. 38 p. Senate.
Information, in response to resolution, concerning purported German-Japanese treaty, adjustment in reference to Shantung, and intimidation of Chinese peace delegates by Japan. August 11, 1919. 2 p. (S. doc. 72.)
Philippine Independence. Hearings before Committee on Philippines, Senate, and Committee on Insular Affairs, House, held jointly. 144 p. Philippines Committee.
Philippine Islands. Special reports on, by Wm. H. Taft, Secretary of War, January 23, 1908, and J. M. Dickinson, Secretary of War, November 23, 1910. 189 p. War Department.
Poland. Agreement between United States, British Empire, France, Italy, and Japan, on the one hand, and Poland on the other hand, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919. 25 p. (S. doc. 82.) French and English. Senate.
Radiotelegraphy. Views of Navy Department on radio communication. July 28, 1919. 6 p. (H. doc. 165.) Navy Department. Reconstruction (World War). Select list of references on economic reconstruction, including reports of British Ministry of Reconstruction. 1919. 47 p. Paper, 10c. Seamen’s Act of March 4, 1915, as amended June 12, 1916. 25 p. House of Representatives. Siberia. Message, in response to resolution, informing Senate of reasons for sending United States soldiers to and maintaining them in Siberia, with statement by State Department issued August 5, 1918, relative to American-Japanese action in Siberia. July 25, 1919. 5 p. (S. doc. 60.) St. Lawrence River Power Co., Interim order, opinions, and hearings in matter of application of, for approval of construction and maintenance of submerged weir in south channel of St. Lawrence River near mouth of its power canal at Massena, N. Y. International Joint Commission on Boundary Waters between United States and Canada. Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended March 28 and September 24, 1918. 21 p. House of Representatives. Trading with the Enemy Act and amendments thereto, with proclamations, executive orders, and orders issued by Acting Secretary of State, issued thereunder to April 8, 1919. 102 p. Alien Property Custodian. Treaty-making Power in Various Countries. Collection of memoranda concerning negotiation, conclusion, and ratification of treaties and conventions, with excerpts from fundamental laws. 1919. 89 p. State Department. Treaties. Methods and procedure in foreign countries relative to ratification of treaties, also extracts from Executive Journal of Senate relative to proceedings in cases of treaties rejected by Senate. 1919. 280 p. (S. doc. 26.) Senate. Proposed abrogation of. Response to resolution requesting information concerning. May 20, 1919. 39 p. (S. doc. 2.) State Department.
Wilson, President. Addresses, Boston, Mass., February 24, 1919, and New York, N. Y., March 4, 1919. 18 p. Paper, 5c.
Wilson, President. Addresses on first trip to Europe, December 3, 1918-February 24, 1919. 58 p. Paper, 5c. Reprint with additions. 60 p. Paper, 5c. Address to Senate, July 10, 1919, relating to peace treaty with Germany. 13 p. Paper, 5c.
World War, 1914-1918, Estimate of number of men of principal nations engaged in, who were killed in battle or died of wounds. 4 p. (S. doc. 40.) War Department.
GEORGE A. FINCH.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
HIS BRITISH MAJESTY's PROCURATOR-GENERAL IN EGYPT v. DEUTSCHE KoHLEN DEPOT GESELLSCHAFT *
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
Decided December 13, 1918
THIS was an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court for Egypt in Prize, by which certain tugs, motorboats, lighters, and other craft, the property of the Deutche Kohlen Company, were declared to have belonged at the time of seizure to enemies of the Crown, and to have been properly seized as good and lawful prize, and they were directed to be detained until further orders. The Crown appealed from so much of the judgment as ordered that the craft should be detained only, and claimed that they should be condemned and confiscated. The company crossappealed, and submitted that the craft were liable neither to condemnation nor detention.
The Solicitor-General and Mr. Gavin Simonds appeared for the Crown; Sir Erle Richards, K. C., and Mr. Balloch for the company.
The Deutsche Kohlen Company, of Hamburg, had a branch at Port Said, where it supplied coal to passing steamers. It owned and used a number of tugs, motor-boats, and lighters, none of which was registered in the German Mercantile Marine. After the outbreak of war it carried on its operations under a limited license granted by the Egyptian Government, but ultimately the business was wound up and liquidated, and the company's craft requisitioned and used by the British authorities. The crown claimed the condemnation of the craft as belonging to enemies. Judge Grain rejected the company’s contention that the craft were exempt from capture under Article 3 of the Eleventh Hague Convention, as being “vessels employed exclusively in coast fisheries, or small boats engaged in local trade.” But he held, contrary to the submission of the Crown, that the craft were “merchant ships” within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth Hague Convention, and were liable only to be detained, not to be condemned or confiscated. From these decisions both parties appealed. The arguments were originally heard in February last, but were broken off to enable the Crown to procure from Egypt certain correspondence bearing on the question whether there had been any seizure of the craft. The Solicitor-General said that there had been no formal seizure, as any such act would have been a breach of the Suez Canal Convention, but he submitted that the steps taken by the authorities amounted to seizure in law. The possession of the craft by the naval and military forces was tantamount to seizure. Sir Erle Richards, K. C., contended that the evidence from Egypt showed that there had been no capture, and therefore the court had no jurisdiction, for it was necessary to have capture as a basis of the proceedings. The craft were merchant ships, which were not liable to seizure, and, besides, they had been working under a license from the Egyptian Government, and could not therefore be seized. They were also protected from seizure by the Suez Canal Convention. Lord Sumner, in delivering their Lordships’ considered judgment, said: The Vice-Admiralty Court at Alexandria decided this case on the application of The Hague Conventions, numbers VI (Arts. 1 and 2) and XI (Article 3). The learned judge held that the craft were not immune from seizure, but only made a detention order against them. Accordingly there are cross-appeals. One party claims condemnation, the other immediate release. Each prepared his case on the assumption that there had been a valid seizure and only sought to inquire, which convention, if either, applied, for if neither was applicable, condemnation followed. During the hearing it appeared that the record contained no account of the circumstances of the seizure, nor indeed expressly alleged any seizure at all, and although it might have been enough to have relied upon the recital in the decree under review, that the various craft were “lawfully seized as good and lawful prize,” on such a point their Lordships were
1 The Times Law Reports, Vol. XXXV, p. 159.