Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 480.

850

L'avantage que la restriction apportait aux neutres était, toutefois, amplement contrebalancé par lefdanger qui résultait pour eux de 1'établissement de ladite présomption. La connexité étroite entre ces deux éléments ressort clairement des paragraphes (III) et (IV) de l'article ier de l'„Order in Council" du 29 octobre 1914, ainsi concus :

„(III) Notwithstanding the provisions of article*35 of the said Déclaration conditional contraband shall be liable'to capture on board a vessel bound for a neutral port, if . ... (etc)."

„(IV) In the cases covered by the preceding paragraph (III) it shall he upon the owners of the goods to prove that their destination was innocent."

Voir dans le même sens 1'art. V, alinéa 2, du décret francais du 6 novembre 1914 et l'art. 5 du décret itaben du 3 juin 1915.

Comp. aussi l'art. 46 des „Norme" italiennes de 1917, traité au § 443-

§ 481. Le motif et le but des modifications visées au § 480 résultent de quelques décisions de la juridiction des prises anglaise. Voir e. a. la décision de la cour d'appel concernant les Loüisiana, Tomsk, Nordic and Joseph W. Fordney (908):

„The apphcation of the doctrine of continuous voyage to conditional' contraband appears to have given rise, during the earlier months of the war, to certain diplomatic representations on the part of the United States. These representations are said to have led to the repeal of the Order of August 20, 1914, and to the substitution therefor of the Order in Council of October 29, 1914 .... The effect of the Order is to waive the doctrine of continuous voyage except in those cases expressly referred to in the modification. The appeüants contend that none of the goods in question in these appeals can be brought within any of the cases referred to [paree qu'a la lettre, aucune des hypotheses n'était applicable aux envois en cause].... Their Lordships are of opinion that this contention cannot be sustained.... The reason for not waiving the doctrine of continuous voyage in the case of consignments to order can only have been that in the case of such consignments the shipper retains the control of the goods and can alter theb destination as his interests may dictate or circumstances may admit. This control may, however be retained, by the shipper, even if he consigns to a named person, provided that the consignée be bound to indorse or otherwise deal with the bill of lading as directed by the shipper. It would be useless to retain the doctrine of continuous voyage in the case of consignments to order if the shipper could escape the doctrine by consigning to a clerk in his office and procuring the clerk to indorse the bill. . . . If the Order were so construed, the modification of article 35 would be absolutely useless, and conditional contraband could be supplied to the enemy Government through neutral

Sluiten