Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

§ 493.


destination in the same condition as they were at the time of seizure, sound ? As at present advised, I think it is quite unsound.

One of the tests apphed (in the cases of the Kim and other vessels) was whether the goods imported were intended to become part of the common stock of the neutral country into which they were first brought. In my view, the notion that leather imported to a neutral country for the express purpose of being at once turned into boots for the enemy forces becomes incorporated in the common stock of the neutral country is illusory. Instances can be given and multiplied which appear to reduce to an absurdity the argument that if work is done in the neutral country upon goods which are intended ultimately to the enemy that cir cumst ance of necessity puts an end to their contraband character, and prevents their being confiscable according to the doctrine of continuous voyage. It may be well to give a few instances, by way of illustration, relating both to conditional and absolute contraband. . . . If a field gun was imported, would it be protected from seizure because it would, in fact, be mounted upon its appropriate carriage before being exported from a neutral country to the enemy's front ? The court could not give af f irmative answers to such questions as these unless it cut itself adrift from the safe anchor of common sense

Ou, pour citer le résumé bref de la controverse donné par 1',.Attorney-General" :

„The contention of the Crown is that by the expression „become part of the common stock of the country" is meant „for consumption by the people of the country". The claimant's contention is that the expression merely means „for manufacture"."

D'ailleurs, il faut remarquer qu'ü s'agissait ici de 74 baües de cuir a semeües a bord d'un navüe neutre (norvégien) consignées a Gothembourg (Suède), mais suspectes d'être destinées a la confection de chaussures pour les forces armées allemandes ou austrohongroises. Ainsi, le premier transport par mer ne devait pas seulement être suivi d'un déchargement des marchandises dans le port neutre et de la fabrication des chaussures dans le pays neutre, mais encore d'un nouvel embarquement de ceües-ci et d'un second transport par mer.

L'interprétation de la doctrine que nous venons d'exposer, semble avob été approuvée tdcitement par le Comité Judiciabe du Conseü Privé dans 1'affaire du vapem Baron Stjernblad (876):

„The position is therefore this. If the shipments of cocoa beans to Sweden be considered coüectively, a considerable portion thereof must be destined for or find its way into Germany, either by the re-export to Germany of the beans themselves or by the export to Germany of the variousproducts of the beans. It must be remembered that in the Balto [1917] (612) it was decided that an intention to export to an enemy coun-