consist of only four members, all of whom are naval officers." It appears, therefore, that the Russian Appellate Court does not contain any lawyer, so that a disregard of the rules of evidence may be expected, and the Russian courts will continue to be stig matised, in words which have been used al ready, as "caricatures of prize courts." RECENT occurrences in the Far East draw from The Law Journal (London), the follow ing observations: The destruction by the Russian ships of their Japanese prizes may give rise to a somewhat difficult question, if any of them should have neutral property on board. The Declaration of Paris provides that neutral goods, other than contraband, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag. Does it follow that when a captured enemy's ship carries neutral cargo, it would be a violation of the obligation imposed on the States ad hering to the Declaration to sink the ship, when it is impracticable to send her into port, and therefore that the only alternative ir. to release her? We think not. Article III. of the Declaration of Paris was intended to make it clear that a belligerent has in general no right to confiscate neutral property. It was not intended to prevent the exercise, against ал enemy, of a recognized belliger ent right. Is the owner of the neutral goods then entitled to compensation if his property has been destroyed together with the ship? The correct answer is probably that when he shipped his property on a vessel sailing under a belligerent flag, he knew that he in curred the risk oí its being destroyed under certain circumstances together with the ship, and therefore that he must be deemed to have taken the risk of such a loss upon him self. This was the position taken up by the French Prize Court when a claim for com pensation was made by the neutral owners of the cargoes of two German ships which, during the war of 1870, were sunk by their captors. Russia will apparently seek to justify the sinking of the Knight Commander on the
619
ground that it was impossible to take her to Vladivostock, and that the Russian Naval Prize Code warrants the destruction of prizes under such circumstances. It cannot be disputed, in our opinion, that the destruc tion of ships captured from the enemy is permissible in certain cases enumerated in the Russian Code. But, as we have already had occasion to point out (and Mr. Balfour's statement in the House of Commons last week shows that the legal advisers of the Government hold the same view), the captor of a neutral ship has no right to destroy her or any property on board of her. He is only entitled to take her to a port of his own country, so that a Prize Court may decide whether the ship or cargo is subject to con demnation. The provisions of the Russian Code may, perhaps justify the action of the Skrydloff, as between her commander and his Government; but, as between Russia and a neutral Power, they cannot rightly be in voked in defence of an act which is contrary to a recognized principle of International Law. The conduct of the Confederates- is cited by some Russian writers as a precedent for that of the Vladivostock squadron. The Alabama and other Confederate cruisers did no doubt sink their prizes, because the block ade of the Southern coasts made it impossi ble to send them to a Confederate port. These prizes, however, were American ships. The Confederates did not venture to destroy any vessels belonging to a neutral country. IN the American Law Review, the late Sey mour D. Thompson- presents the following astonishing picture of the Swedish legal sys tem, his article being based on a recently published work by one of the Deputy-Judges of Sweden: Herr Fahlcrantz points out, that in the ancient Swedish legal procedure, the parties were bound to lay the full and real truth be fore the judge. Gustavus Adolphus, in the law of procedure which he enacted in 1615, had given each party the right to claim from the other a discovery upon oath, wherein he was "not to hide the truth but openly to con
