Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 329.


knees, or to effect its ruin. To adopt a phrase of „Historicus", the German Government by these means looked forward to „creating a terrestrial globe in which the unsymmetrical contour of the British Isles was to be

blotted out." UïiLiS Bearing in mind all these facts, I fail to see how it can be said that the Order in Council was not justified as against the enemy; and if so justified, how it can be said that the consequences — inevitable as they were _ thereby entailed upon neutrals are ünreasonable, or such as to render the Order illegal.

The first Order did not subject to confiscation the goods or the vessels. The former were to be detained untü the end of the war ; the latter were left to go free to ply their trade after discharging the goods. It occasions no startling surprise that such an Order was found ineffective against such a determined submarine warfare. When neutral ships were so immune, the enemy's trade, so profitable to owners of ships, was not likely to suffer greatly. The goods of enemy origin, or for enemy destination, were immovable by sea without the ships. The ships gave hfe and motion to the trade. If it was right to retaliate by attempting to prevent or destroy the commerce of the enemy, it was necessary that the vessels which engaged in carrying it on to and from the enemy country should come under some disabüity. A suggestion was made that detention untü the end of the war would be sufficiënt. Who can teil ? It may be that it would pay neutrals to have theh vessels so detained and saved from the perüs of süiking, and to have them delivered up at the conclusion of the war when they might be of an enormously enhanced value. I cannot, by any process of weighing in fine scales facts of which I have far less knowledge than the naval advisers, say what the exact Order or measure or retahation should be. It is enough to say that, according to the best opinion I can form, the present Order is not excessive as against the enemy, or in its effect on neutrals. I faü to see how it can be said that the effect on neutrals is excessive or ünreasonable, when simüar disadvantages are imposed on them in many cases of carriage of contraband, in all cases of violation, or attempted violation of blockade, and even in aü cases of refusal of, or résistance to, visit and search.

I therefore decide against the contention of the claimants that the Order entaüs ünreasonable consequences on neutrals, having regard to aü the circumstances. .

[Enfin, la cour rejette encore la défense des réclamants résumée cidessus sub (f).]"

Dans sa décision d'appel Leonora (1198) le „Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" loue le jugement de première instance comme „a monument of research" et se range a 1'avis de Sir Samuel Evans

„that the Order in Councü did not involve greater hazard or prejudice to the neutral trade in question than was commensurate with the gravity of the enemy outrages and the common need for theh re p i

Mais ü est particuhèrement digne de remarque que la cour d'appel