5 <7o et ss ] In my view, it is abundantly clear that enemy goods carried in British vessels are subject to seizure in port and capture at sea in times of war." . ,
Plus tard, le Comité Judiciaire du Conseü Pnve a discute amplement la même question dans sa décision d'appel concernant le navire anglais Roümanian (205), qui avait transporté du pétrole allemand [voir aussi § 144].
The contention that enemy goods on British ships at the commencement of hostüities are not the subject of maritime prize was not argued before the President in the present case. It had already been decided by him in the Miramichi (20) [voir supra]. Theh Lordships have considered carefuüy the judgment of the President in the last-mentioned case, and entkélv agree with it. The appeüants' counsel based their contention on three arguments. First, they reüed on the dearth of reportedL casesim which enemy goods on British ships at the commencement of hostilities have been condemned as prize .... Secondly, they laid stress on certain general statements contained in textbooks on international law Thirdly they caüed in aid that part of the Déclaration of Paris which aff ords protection to enemy goods other than contraband on neutral ships and the principle underlying or supposed to underhe such Déclaration With regard to the dearth of reported décisions, it is to be observed that the plainer a proposition of law the more düficult it sometimes; is to find a décision actuaüy in point.... With regard to thegeneral statements contained in text-books on international law, it is to beoteerved that none appears to have been based on any discussion of the point in issue .... Passing to the appeüants' third argument .. 1.may be stated more fuüy as foüows: Enemy goods on neutral territory were never the legitimate subject of maritime prize. Such goods could not be seized without an infringement of the rights of neutrals. The rights ol neutrals are simüarly infringed it enemy goods be seized on neutral stops but the law of prize having for the most part been formulated and laid down by nations capable of exer.cising and able to exercise the Fessure of sea power, the rights of neutrals have been ignored to this extent, that the caphire of enemy goods in neutral vessels on the high seas or m ports or habours of the realm has been deemed lawful capture. The Déclaration of Paris is in fuüer accordance with principle ; it recogmses that no distinction can be drawn between neutral territory and neutral ships . . So far, the argument proceeds logicaüy, but its next step is, in their Lordships' opinion, open to considerable criticism. If, say the appeüants neutral shïps are assimilated, as on principle they should be to neutral territory; British ships ought to be in like marmer assimdated to British territory Whatever may have been the case in earlier times, no one wül now contend that the private property of enemy subjects found withm the realm at the commencement of a war can be seized and appropriated by the CrowmThe same ought, therefore, to be hold of enemy goods found in British ships at the commencement of war. - This part of the argu-