preamble. It is enough for me to say that the preamble states that cause has arisen for reprisals by reason of the facts recited therein.
It has been argued by counsel for the claimants that the Order m Councü is unlawful, because it entaüs upon neutrals a further degree of mconvenience Any interference with the trade of an enemy m so far as that trade is carried by the ships of neutrals, must necessarüy cause mconvenience As has been pointed out, in the case of contraband, and particularlv in the case ol a breach of blockade, the inconvemence to neutrals is very great. It has been publicly stated — I may as weü repeat it here — that the Order in Councü deals very leniently with neutrals engaged in trade with the enemy, which this country thinks it is right to try to put a stop to; because whereas in the case ot a breach of blockade, or of an attempt to break bicekade, the neutral would suffer a complete confiscation of the vessel, nothing of the kind results under the terms of the present Order in Councü. AU that is done is to take the vessel and her cargo to a British port. The vessel is released or ought to be released as soon as what is necessary to comply with the Order as to the discharge of the cargo has been done; and her owners also receivea proper sum in respect of freight [comp. § 332].
According to the judgment of the Privy Councü in The Zamora although the recitals as to the case for reprisals are conclusive, the Court is notlctuaUy bound to hold that the means of meeting an emergency by way of reprisals are the best or only means. The Privy Councü further said that no party aggrieved is precluded from contending „that these means are unlawful as entaüing on neutrals a degree of inconvemence ünreasonable considering aü the circumstances of the case.
If I have to express an opinion on that, I express it without doubt, that the means adopted in this Order in Council do not ent aü upon neutrals a degree of inconvemence ünreasonable considering aU the crrcumstances of the case, and that therefore it cannot be said that by reason of these means the Order in Council is in itseü unlawful . In the result I am of opinion that the Order in Councü is lawful as an Order enjoining reprisals in accordance with the pnncip es of international law. The result, in my opinion, is that, whatever delay or inconvemence may inevitably or necessarüy be caused, as in this case, neutrals must suffer that delay and that inconvemence, as the consequence of the exercise of legitimate belhgerent rights on the part of this country ....
Nous faisons observer particulièrement que la cour des pnses passé sous süence la question de la non-validité de r„Order" a la lumière du droit écrit, formulé dans la 2ième règle de la Déclaration de Paris, bien que les réclamants eussent spécialement excipe de cette règle. Voir a ce sujet § 319 ci-dessus.
(2) La décision citée ci-dessus a été confirmée par la cour d appel, au jugement de laqueüe nous empruntons les passages suivants: Stigstad (1048) : „The claimants' real contention is. and is only,