rent of requisitioning vessels or goods seized as prize before adjudication .... [Suit une argumentation tendant a démontrer les différentes raisons pour lesquelles il eüt cependant mieux valu ne pas voter cette loi, dont, entre autres, „the provisions (went) beyond what is justified.' by international usage." Aussi Lord Russel, au nom du Gouvernement britannique, protesta-t-ü contre certaines de ses dispositions, le 21 avril 1863 ; voir pour les motifs de cette protestation les termes du jugement]. . . ."
Ensuite le Comité Judiciaire examine si c'est avec raison que le juge de première instance invoqué le „right of pre-emption" :
„Some stress was laid in argument on the cases cited in the judgment in the Court below upon what is known as „the right of pre-emption," but in their Lordships' opinion these cases have littie, if any, bearing on the matter now in controversy. The right of pre-emption appears to have arisen in the following marnier [comp. aussi § 503] : According to the British view of international law, naval stores were absolute contraband, and if found on a neutral vessel bound for an enemy port were lawful prize. Other countries contended that such stores were only contraband if destined for the use of the enemy Government. If destined for the use of civüians they were not contraband at all. Under these circumstances the British Government, by way of mitigation of the severity of its own view, consented to a kind of compromise. Instead of condemning such stores as lawful prize, it bought them out and out from theh neutral owners; and this practice, after forming the subject of many particular treaties, at last came to be recognised as fully warranted by international law. It was, however, always conf ined to naval stores, and a purchase pursuant to it put an end to all litigation between the Crown on the one hand and the neutral owner on the other. Only in cases where the titie of the neutral was in doubt, and the property might turn out to be enemy property, was the purchase money paid into Court. Itis obvious, therefore, that this „right of pre-emption" differs widely from the right of requisitioning the vessels or goods of neutrals, which is exercised without préjudice to, and does not conclude or otherwise affect, the question whether the vessel or goods should or should not be condemned cis prize."
Enfin, le Comité Judiciaire définit dans les termes suivants les limites du droit de réquisition:
„A belligerent Power has by international law the right of requisitioning vessels or goods in the custody of its Prize Court pending a décision of the question whether they should be condemned or released, but such right is subject to certain limitations. First, the vessel or goods in que»-> tion must be urgently required for use in connection with the defence of the realm, the prosecution of the war, or other matters involving national security; secondly, there must be a real question to be tried, so that it would be improper to order an immediate release ; and thirdly, the right must be enforced by application to the Prize Court, which