WflwiTt%i£ TithllWft' 0otftlSwi inii^i ¦1939
| The Ciiy of Fiiit ip
The Again of the American cargo '-Vessel
CIty*pf?Fltoi by ^ German cruaffl;,, ami Jhe
sending of jfce vessel to Russia with a-prize
crew, opens sessions of diplomacy and inter-
national law such as have frequently arisen
when-blockades have been proclaimed fegfrogg
nations at'war. The seizure of neutral vessels
has been not infrequent, but such seizures in
the .pist hav> almost invariably been ques-
tioned, even when—as may or may not be the
case of the' City of Flint—.the cargo has been
largely contraband. Neutrals have challenged
the right of a belligerent to blockade an enemy
unless the blockade can be made, and in fact
is, effective. Belligerents, in return, have
'placed such restrictions on neutrals as they
felt they . could1 safely enforce. In cases of
'seizui^j^^Se^'al vessels the/practice has
been to bring ttiem as quickly as possible to a
port of. the beUigerferit/'thaj'seized the vessel
tand^then place the case before a prize court.
vessel's conduct'has been shown
to be patently unneutral it has been confis-
cated, ^emergencies, such as bad weather,
vessels halted and searched on the high seas
have been taken to neutral ports, As a mat-
ter of fact, under the J|8ns- Of Article 23 of-
the: Second Hague Conventlonv.it is expressly
agreed that "a neutral power-may allow prizes
to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether
under convoy or not, when tHes&aj^brought
there to be sequestered pendrng'tHeJ^decision
of a prize court." :
In the case of the Glty of Flint a number of i
important points are at issue. First and fore- j
j most is whether or not the vessel was carry- j
| ing contraband. The second is whether, ,the j
j ship having been manned with a prize crew
I and sailed under the German flag to a neutral
rather than to a German port, Russia will
attempt to invoke the terms of the Hague
Convention, and whether, in such a case, the
American government will recognize Article -
action by a prize court. N«
take place in .Germany. As the v<
is. in a remote Russian port, the question of
verification of its cargo may present technical
poli
unrestricted
are is recalled, under which
vessels were sunk without warning,
which Germany has taken to bring
lint to port—even though not to
rt-suggests a willingness on the
part of present^ German leaders to be more
circumspect than were the leaders in the last
war. If the German blockade of Great Britain
is yalid^j|hich is, of course, a question on
Which- authorities, on international law dis- 1
agree—the procedure with respect to the City j
of Flint cannot be condemned, always pro- \
vided the vessel's cargo was largely; contra-I
band. It was largely to avoid such incidents
that so many persons have, urged changes in
the neutrality law so as to exclude American
om belligerent war zones. Under,the'1
American law there seems no doubt
that the City of Flint was lawfully and prop-
erly engaged. There seems equally little doubt
that the German authorities felt that her
cargo fell under the German definition of
contraband and that, therefore, it could prop-
erly be seized and brought before a prize court
in Germany. But the detention of the .vessel
in a neutral port raises complications. Great
Eritain and France, as well as neutral nations,
are certain to be reluctant to recognize a
Which neutral vessels might be
anywhere on the high seas, and
when sent to the nearest neutral port be
effectively driven off the seas..
The incident is full of diplomatic dynamite,
but it should be viewed calmly and unhys-
M"—ieally. Great Britain at the
nt has a number of American v
detention.. They are in British ports and were
taken there by their own—not by prize—
crews. It is the German contention thatsGer-
imariy is merely followfogl&be British example,
Although in a som^to^if^^^mM6ef^^