Reprisals Order m Councü .... - I do not find anything in the terms of the relevant articles of the Reprisals Order which purports to divest enemy property or subject it to coiifiseation. It provides for detention and it creates the jurisdiction in the Prize Court to deal with detained' enemy goods ra the way in which goods brought in as prize may be dealt with in a Prize Court, but it leaves the ownership in those goods as it found the ownership.... (The enemy owner) was not disabled by any means known to British law, or to international law, from making his bargain with the (neutral) claimants. That was the event of March, 1917
In March 1919, the cause of condemnation came on for deter-
. mmation (et le 2 r mars 1919 la procédme finit par un jugement ordonnant „the proceeds to be detained in Court untü the conclusion of peace or iurther order ) ....
. It is to that state of facts that I have to apply the terms of the Peace lreaty and, in particular, of article 297. If the fund at the time of the i'eace Treaty had been.the property of any German subject, article 207 would have been effèctive to transfer aü proprietary interests in it to His Majesty the King. ... The goods are claimed by the Crown as having passed under the Treaty.... I now have examined the Peace 1 reaty, and I am satisfied that this fund is not within the description of „property", „rights" and „interests", which are dealt with by article 297, section (b) of the Peace Treaty. It was not a fund bélonging to a German national at the time there named."
Cette décision de Lord Sterndale fut confirmée en appel, Oscar II, n°. 2 (1369):
„In international law there is no rule which forbids the purchase of goods by a neutral from an enemy after seizure by a belügerent Such a purchase is no doubt subject to aü rights which accrue to a belügerent as a consequence of the seizure. For instance, if the goods purchased by a neutral are condemned as prize in a Prize Court, this is a risk which a neutral must have known would attach to his purchase at the time when he made it and defeats any right which he otherwise might have to claim the goods. On the other hand, if, apart from the operation of some special order such as the Reprisals Order of March n, 1915, the purchased goods are hberated by the Prize Court, the ownership of the neutral purchaser becomes effèctive, if, as is admitted in the present case, the transaction has been carried through by a bona fide transfer which in itself is not open to question, and is not questioned by the appellant.
In the present case the only special order which can in any way affect the claim of the respondent or restrict his rights is the Reprisals Order
ot March n, 1915 There is not a word in the Order which can be
construed as depriving an enemy owner of the right, which he otherwise would possess, to transfer the goods seized, or their proceeds, toa neutral purchaser, or as invahdating the tiüe of the neutral purchaser ... t ,If the effect of the Reprisals Order of March n, 1915, has been accurately stated, it is impossible to maintain that Article 297 of the Treaty of