a neutral flag to a neutral country without ulterior destination of any kind. Accordingly, the Déclaration of Paris was to have been invoked."
II est bien curieux de constater avec quelle adresse notamment les cours anglaises parviennent a se soustraire a la décision de points épineux.
§ 810. La deuxième règle de la Déclaration de Paris n'a pas non plus abrogé la doctrine ancienne concernant r,,infection" de marchandises innocentes appartenant au propriétaire d'objets de contrebande a bord du même navne [comp. a ce sujet §§ 505 et ss.]. Kronprinsessan Margareta, Rena, Parana and Hilding
„Two further arguments are chiefly relied on. The first, that the ruleas to inf ection has been virtuafly abrogated by the Déclaration of Paris, 1856;...
Theb Lordships wül, of course, pay every possible regard to such an instrument as the Déclaration of Paris, but it is necessary to point out exactly what, in this connection, its provisions were. A neutral flag protects enemy goods from capture as enemy goods ; in a neutral bottom enemy goods are placed on the same f ooting as neutral goods. The Déclaration, however, is not a charter of immunity in aü circumstances for enemy goods under a neutral flag, nor does it protect goods sbnpiy as being enemy goods, which, ü neutral, would have been hable to condemnation. The Déclaration says nothing about the criteria by whiclr the enemy or neutral character of goods is to be determined ; it says nothing about the doctrine of „infection" ; it says nothing about admissibüity or rules of evidence ; it says nothing of the rights of a belhgerent to repress traffic in contraband of war, or of the modes by which Courts of Prize give effect to and protect those rights. It is said that the g™^*» on which so-caüed „paper transfers" of property at sea are disregarded have no application in the present case, for the goods, even bi the cases where they were enemy property when shipped, were covered by the neutral flag, and not even potentiaUy capable of being made good prize, and have since been transferred in good faith and in the ordinary way of trade. The answer is simple. They were capable of being made good pnze, even though they were enemy goods in a neutral bottom, for if they were contraband, or were „infected" by contraband, being in a common ownership with contraband when seized, nothing in the Déclaration of Paris either expressly or impüedly protected them." § 817. D'après 1'opinion de la Cour de Londres, le pavülon neutre ne couvre pas non plus les cargaisons qui sont la propriété de ressortissants de 1'Etat capteur ou d'un Etat alüé et qui font 1'objet d'une transaction commerciale avec 1'ennemi (commun).
Cette thèse se trouve appliquée impücitement dans 1'affaire Panariettos (75), oü U était question d'un navbe grec (neutre)