Слике страница

tions.” The representatives of some states at the Peace Conference of

1919 seem to be holding the old ideas of balance of power, alliances, and other combinations, while others seem to appreciate the drift toward the recognition of a degree of world unity. Metternich in his day viewed the effort of peoples to obtain embodiment in national unities as “absurd in itself.” So in these days some view “the paramount authority of the public will” as did Metternich, but Metternich, and Francis Joseph, who connected Metternich's day with the twentieth century, have both passed away. As nationalism was not sacrificed, but, rather when separated from provincialism, given a greater opportunity for self-realization through the development of internationalism, so nationalism and internationalism, as is clearly shown in the demand for self-determination of peoples and for effective sanction for international rights, will not be sacrificed in the development of pan-nationalism, but will be offered an opportunity for development to a degree hitherto unknown. G. G. W.


In September, 1918, the Secretary of State announced that, as the Czecho-Slovak peoples had taken up arms against the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires, and had placed organized armies in the field, which were waging war against those empires, under officers of their own nationality and in accordance with the rules and practices of civilized nations; and that as the Czecho-Slovaks had, in the prosecution of their independent purposes in the existing war, confided supreme political authority to the Czecho-Slovak National Council,

The Government of the United States recognizes that a state of belligerency exists between the Czecho-Slovaks thus organized and the German and AustroHungarian Empires.

It also recognizes the Czecho-Slovak National Council as a de facto belligerent government, clothed with proper authority to direct the military and political affairs of the Czecho-Slovaks.

It was also announced simultaneously that the Government of the United States was prepared to enter formally into relations with the de facto government thus recognized for the purpose of prosecuting the war against the common enemy, the Empires of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The tests which are commonly laid down respecting the propriety of the recognition of the belligerency of insurgents by a foreign power are designed to indicate the circumstances when such action may be taken without justifying complaint by the parent state engaged in the task of repression. The absence of ground for such complaint permits on principle the maintenance of friendly relations between that state and the power according recognition. The act of recognition serves, moreover, to release the former from responsibility for whatever may be done by the insurgents. The recognition accorded the Czecho-Slovaks rested upon a different basis. The United States was at war with Austria-Hungary as well as Germany, and possessed the right as a belligerent to endeavor to cause the disintegration of either Empire as a means of weakening opposition and of hastening the day of victory. There was no duty to the enemy to refrain from such action. Hence it became unimportant whether, in recognizing the Czecho-Slovaks, those conditions were met which should have been satisfied had the United States been a neutral seeking to avoid participation in the conflict as the enemy of the Central European States. That it was reasonable as well as expedient for the United States to accord recognition when it did, is not open to question. The justness of the claim of the Czecho-Slovak peoples to the control, disposition and government of the territories which they had long occupied was not lessened by their inability to maintain an army within their ancestral lands. Nor did that circumstance necessarily render arbitrary the determination of the United States and of the Allies to assist those peoples to realize their national aspirations through the recognition accorded. This mode of helping the Czecho-Slovak peoples in their struggle to bring into being a new State might have been open to criticism had their armies been disorganized bands waging a ruthless war regardless of the practices of civilized nations, or had they not confided their supreme political authority to an organized national council, or had their aspirations been deemed unsound in principle or incapable of exact geographical definition. In no one of these respects, however, were the Czecho-Slovaks wanting. It is believed that the United States acted wisely in pursuing the course which it did, and which was in harmony with the action taken by Great Britain in

August, 1918. The text of the Declaration of Independence of the Czecho-Slovak nation, adopted at Paris October 18, 1918, gives promise of a new State whose ancient heritage of independence strengthens hope in the virility of its institutions, and whose profession of allegiance to principles of democracy gains increased respect through the announcement of a readiness to assume a proper portion of the Austro-Hungarian pre-war public debt.



The prize courts in the present war have been called on to decide some novel points as to the status of private yachts, and to consider their rights in several particulars.

The Austro-Hungarian steam yacht Oriental, two hundred and eighty tons burden, owned by Dr. Desiderius de Bayer Kruesay, of Budapest, was at Southampton at the outbreak of war and was there detained. Two days later Austria-Hungary agreed to days of grace and the yacht was released. However, the days of grace expired and she was still at Southampton and was again seized.

It was found that she was flying from her stern post a Hungarian flag. There was no authorized flag of Hungary, but there was an Austro-Hungarian flag, and the flag in question was a part of this.

It was claimed she was a Swedish vessel registered with the Royal Swedish Sailing Association, with a Swedish crew and captain, and jointly owned by Dr. Kruesay and Dr. Banck, of Helsingborg, Sweden. She had gone to Cowes for the Regatta and was thus in British waters.

The President of the Prize Court, the Right Honorable Sir Samuel Evans, held that clearly, by the ship's papers and from the fact of her flying the Hungarian flag, her nationality must be held to be Hungarian; that the fact that the owner was admitted a member of a Swedish yacht club was absolutely immaterial; that the papers showed ownership in Dr. Kruesay alone, and by the settled rules of prize law, as well as by the Declaration of London, the test of nationality was the flag a vessel was entitled to fly.

The Crown contended that the provision of the Hague Convention, giving vessels in a hostile port at the outbreak of war days of grace, applied only to merchant vessels and not to pleasure yachts. This contention seems to have been allowed, and the days of grace to have been granted by the Crown notwithstanding. The yacht, for some reason, failed to avail herself of these days. She was therefore held clearly enemy property, condemned, ordered sold, and the proceeds paid into court. The President refused an application for admission of an appeal. (The Oriental, 1 Lloyd's [1915], P.C. 355.) About six months later the same court was asked to condemn the celebrated German racing yacht Germania, one hundred and twentythree tons (net), owned by Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, of the Imperial German Yacht Club. She was estimated worth £45,000, and came to Southampton to take part in the Cowes Regatta, with a German skipper and crew and also an English skipper and mate. She was dry docked for repairs, but was seized August 4, 1914, in the wet dock at Southampton. An order merely for her detention during the war was at first made, but later her condemnation was claimed. On behalf of her owner it was urged that, being in a British port when hostilities broke out, the order for detention should remain in force, that she had never been given days of grace to enable her to depart, and that, as a racing sailing yacht of no value for commercial, naval or military purposes, she was not confiscable, and confiscation would be contrary to the comity of nations and the Hague Conventions. Austria-Hungary had given days of grace and therefore they were allowed to the Hungarian yacht above. Germany gave no days of grace. The President held that a racing yacht, clearly, did not come within the Sixth Hague Convention, which dealt only with matters relating to commerce and was meant only to protect those engaged in commerce. He held this yacht not within the term navire de commerce. That not being protected by the Hague Convention, it must be condemned. Repairs had been made before seizure and later to keep the yacht from deterioration, at the risk of repairers, and the court was prepared to decide against a claim interposed for them, but the Crown

consented to a reference and the Court was glad of this. (The Germania, 4 Lloyd's P. C. 237.)?

The London Times of January 18, 1918, states that the Germania only realized £10,000, and was bought by Mr. H. Hannevig, a Norwegian resident in London, and transferred to his brother, Mr. C. Hannevig, of New York. Ten thousand pounds was deposited with the marshal as a guarantee that during the war she would not be transferred to an enemy, and this sum was, through the marshal, presented by Mr. C. Hannevig to the British and French Red Cross Societies, a new guarantee being substituted. (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 238, note.)

It appears that a Belgian yacht, the Primavera, was seized by the Germans when they entered Antwerp, and condemned in the Hamburg Prize Court. The Court said it was not established that the nations have firmly adopted the practice of excluding yachts from the right of capture at sea. (4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 265, note.)

Mr. Bateson, K.C., contended in the English Prize Court that the German Court placed the Primavera in the same category as merchant ships, but his contention was not successful in inducing like action in the English courts.

The cases seem to establish that the old classification of vessels as ships of state or merchant ships is not comprehensive. That yachts, either designed for pleasure cruising or for racing, and whether propelled by steam or sail, are a separate class, and not entitled to the special exemptions or privileges accorded to either of the other classes.



CONCERNING PRISONERS OF WAR ? On November 11, 1918, the American and German delegates at Berne signed an agreement concerning prisoners of war, sanitary, personnel and civil prisoners. As the armistice was signed on the same date, the provisions of this Prisoners' Agreement were superseded by the terms of the armistice, and therefore it is unlikely that

1 The decision was affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council March 29, 1917. 4 Lloyd's P. C., p. 266.

2 Printed in Supplement to American Journal of International Law, January, 1919.

« ПретходнаНастави »