FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155  
156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   >>   >|  
otified to the Consuls of all States in the blockaded port." Commanders are, no doubt, instructed to notify the fact, "as far as possible, to the competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral Powers within the circumference of the blockade"; but that is a very different thing. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. The Athenaeum, March 10 (1905). JAPANESE PRIZE LAW Sir,--Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine Insurance that I have been familiar, ever since its promulgation, with the Japanese prize law of 1894, quoted by him as authority for statements made in your issue of March 10, the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out in a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by him on that occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated, not by that law, but by notifications and instructions issued from time to time during 1904. I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed on such matters, but also to see that my information is up to date. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T. E. HOLLAND. Oxford, March 15 (1905). _(Continuous Voyages)_ The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows, that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband the doctrine of "continuous voyages," seem to be "demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a British prize Court," was referred to by Lord Salisbury in a despatch of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von Buelow, with reference to the seizure of _Bundesrath_. _Parl. Papers_, Africa, No. 1 (1900), p. 19. The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between "carriage of contraband" and "enemy service," which has sometimes been lost sight of, was established in the case of _Yangtsze Insurance Association_ v. _Indemnity Mutual Marine Company_, [1908] K.B. 910, in which it was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of military officers of a belligerent State, as passengers in a neutral ship, is not a breach or a warranty against contraband of war in a policy of marine insurance. The carriage of enemy despatches will no longer be generally treated as "enemy service" since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907, ratified by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November 27, 1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of blockade, "the pos
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155  
156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
letter
 

contraband

 

carriage

 

breach

 

Marine

 
Insurance
 

service

 

HOLLAND

 

blockade

 

obedient


Powers

 

Consuls

 

servant

 

neutral

 
referred
 

British

 

Yangtsze

 
commerce
 
established
 

Salisbury


communicated
 

Papers

 
Buelow
 

Bundesrath

 

seizure

 

despatch

 

January

 

distinction

 

reference

 

Africa


officers

 
Convention
 
treated
 

generally

 

insurance

 

despatches

 

longer

 

ratified

 

including

 

Britain


November

 

marine

 

policy

 

Bigham

 
Indemnity
 

Mutual

 

Company

 
transport
 
warranty
 

passengers