Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 335.

6i4

Mais le „Judicial Corrunittee" a élirniné cette argumentation entière et a simplement tranché la contestation, au profit des intéressés neutres, sur la seule base des termesv expres du „Reprisals Order" qu'il n'était pas permis d'interpréter d'une facon extensive:

„Their Lordships are not to be understood to accept these assumptions as legitimate, or to express any opinion upon them ; nor do they hold that the facts in the present case establish a „ccmtinuous transit" from Germany to America, in progress-at the time of the seizure, in the sense in which that expression is used by the appellant in this part of the argument. They think that it is not necessary to investigate these assumptions on the present occasion. There is, in any case, a broad ground on which the whole of the appellant's argument on this point fails.... [suivent des observations touchant le caractère exceptionnel du „Reprisals Order"

dont les tenues sont strictae interpretationis] The words are precise,

There is nothing said of „enemy character", nothing added to the words „enemy property" to make them applicable to a date antecedent to that of the diversion, nothing to show that the words are to be deemed to include something to which otherwise they would not extend. How can their Lordships be asked under the name of construing the plain and sbnple language of the Order, to declare that it condemns neutral property which has been validly acqubed from Germans within a certain time and under certain cbcumstances, and this not by force of the Order itself, but by an appeal to general rules whose inadeqUacy made it necessary to bring the special .provisions of the Order into existence ?" § 386. Les dispositions des „Reprisals Orders" s'étendent aussi aux fonds publiés ennemis, qui doivent être compris dans les termes „goods" et „commodities". Voir aussi § 187.

Frederik VIII (519) : „German Government bonds of the nominal value of 30.000 marks were sent by the Dbektion der Disconto Gesellèchaft, of Berlin, to the firm of Messrs. B. & J. of Copenhagen, for transmission to the State Commercial and Savings Bank, of Chicago. They were shipped on the ss. Frederik VIII on March 30, 1916. A few days af terwards they were requbed to be discharged under the said „Reprisals"

Order in Council (art. IV) No order for their detention can be made

unless the bonds come within the description „commodities" or „goods". The Order in Council deals with matters analogous to maritime prize .... In prize the bonds and theb accompanying coupons would be goods subject to seizure and confiscation Prima facie, if bonds were „goods"

capturable as prize, one would expect them also to be bicluded within an Order in Council for reprisal.... The word „commodity" is one of extensive meaning, denoting anything that is useful, convenient, or serviceable ; and it would not be easy to conceive a wider or more comprehensive phrase than „commodities of any kind" .... I think it abun dantly clear that the bonds in question come within those words. If

Sluiten