Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T18:26:45.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of the “Appam” and the Law of Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Arthur Burchard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the time when the Emden and all other German ships had ended their careers on the high seas, and England thought herself safe from the inroads of German cruisers on the ocean, about the middle of January, 1916, the Liverpool liner Appam disappeared on a voyage from Dakar, West Africa, to Plymouth, England. This ship had left its port of departure on January 11th and was expectgd in Plymouth the 21st of that month. After four days, wireless communication with the vessel ceased suddenly, and as nothing was heard of the ship during the following days, it was given up for lost. It was admitted that it had either gone down in a severe storm which had been raging on the West African coast, or had been sunk by a German submarine which had extended its radius of action.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1917 , pp. 270 - 301
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1917

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Translated from the German by Carlyle Reginald Barnett, of New York City. 270

2 Since this article was written, this case has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, which has ordered the Appam returned to her British owners. The decision is printed infra, p. 443. – ED.

3 Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 2d ed. by Lawrence, p. 726; Hall, A Treatise on International Law, 5th ed., p. 985.

4 Wehberg, Seekriegsreckt, Handbuch des Völkerrechts, Vol. 4, p. 441; Moore, Digest, Vol. 5, sec. 821, p. 588; Wheaton, Elements, pp. 490 (note 165), 711.

5 Westlake, International Law, Part 2, p. 214.

6 Westlake, International Law, Part 2, pp. 213-214.

7 Ibid., p. 213.

8 Ibid., p. 214.

9 Ibid., p. 214.

10 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1314, pp. 982–983.

11 Ibid., pp. 982–983.

12 Ibid., p. 985

13 Moore, Vol. 2, Sec. 254, p . 576.

14 Wehberg, ibid., p. 441; Annuaire de I'Institut, Vol. XXIII, pp. 86, 87, 136, 143, 148, 156, 166 ff.; Wheaton, pp. 725-726, note 1 on p. 726.

15 Hall, p. 642; Wheaton, p. 197; “If, for reasons of state, the ports of a nation generally, or any particular ports, be closed against vessels of war generally, or against the vessels of any particular nation, notice is usually given of such determination. If there be no prohibition, the ports of a friendly nation are considered as open to the public ships of all powers with whom it is at peace, and they are supposed to enter such ports, and to remain in them while allowed to remain, under the protection of the government of the place. If there be no treaty applicable to the case, and the sovereign from motives deemed adequate by himself permits his ports to remain open to the public ships of friendly Powers, the conclusion seems irresistible that they enter by his assent. And if they enter by his assent necessarily implied, no just reason is perceived for distinguishing their case from that of vessels which enter by express assent.” See Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. IV, ch. 7 sec. 12.

16 Wheaton, p. 726.

17 Wheaton, p. 490 (note 165), 711; Moore, Vol. V, sec. 821, p. 588.

18 Hall, p. 475: “Therefore, unless your prizes should be very valuable and near a friendly port, it will be imprudent and worse than useless to attempt to send them in. A single cruiser, if ever so successful, can man but few prizes, and every prize is a serious diminution of her force. …”

19 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1212, p. 516

20 Ibid., p. 516.

21 Ibid., p. 517.

22 Ibid., p. 517.

23 Ibid., pp. 516-517.

24 Hall, p. 475.

25 Wehberg, p. 398.

26 Hall, p. 476, note 1.

27 Hall, p. 476, note 1; Roscoe, Reports of Prize Cases from 1745 to 1859, Vol. II, pp. 235-6.

28 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1315, pp. 987-989.

29 Ibid., p. 989.

30 Stockton, Outlines of International Law (1914), Appendix V, pp. 598-601.

31 Niemeyer, Internationales Seekriegsrecht, Part II, Urkundbuch zum Seekriegsrecht, Vol. I, p. 22.

32 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1198, pp. 498-499; Niemeyer, op. cit.

33 Niemeyer, p. 22.

34 Niemeyer, p. 30.

35 Westlake, Vol. II, p. 213.

36 Wehberg, p. 316.

37 Wheaton, p. 972.

38 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1314, pp. 982-983; Wheaton, p. 42 (note).

39 Ibid., p. 671, and note 1.

40 Wheaton, p. 962.

41 Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 578.

42 Moore, Vol. 2, p. 591.

43 Wheaton, p. 726, note 1.

44 Ibid., pp. 575-577.

45 Hall, p. 473.

46 Hall, pp. 472-473; Wheaton, p. 653; Westlake, Part 2, p. 156.

47 Westlake, part 2, p. 519; Hall, p. 645, note 2, The Anne, 3 Wheaton, 446.

48 Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 580; Wheaton, pp. 208, 671, 722; Westlake, Part 2, p. 216; Hall, pp. 644-645.

49 Wheaton, pp. 671, 725.

50 Ibid., p. 975.

51 Wheaton, p. 208; Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 581; Hall, p. 645, note 2.

52 Hall, p. 645, with other cases.

53 Wheaton, notes on pages 41 and 42; Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 1076-1078, Vol. 7, see. 1314, pp. 982-983.

54 According to Resolutions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate for 1820, and of the House of Representativesjor 1837, the last on a report of the Secretary of State. H. Rep. 2d Sess., 23d Congress, Vol. 2, p. 389; 2d Sess., 24th Cong., Vol. 2, p. 297; Wheaton, Elements, p. 42.

55 Wheaton, pp. 726-727, note 218; Hall, p. 199; Opinions of Attorney Gen., Vol. 7, p. 123, Mr. Cushing, Apr. 28, 1855.

56 Lee, Atty. Gen., 1797, 1 Op. 78; 8 Hamilton's Works, by Lodge, p. 304; Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1223, p. 589.

57 Moore, op. cit.

58 Michelsen, Völkerrecht, in the collection Encyclopaedischer Grundriss der Rechtswissen schaften fuer Chinesen, pp. 16-17.

59 Westlake, Part 1, p. 241.

60 Ibid., p. 240.

61 Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 257, p. 591; The Parlement Belge (Feb. 27, 1880), L. R. 5, P. D., 197, 217.

62 Vavasseur v. Krupp, L. R. 9, Ch. Div., 351, 354, 359, 360, July 3,1878; Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 258, pp. 591-592.

63 Wheaton, pp. 199-200, note 69.

64 Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 258, p. 592.

65 Moore, op. cit.

66 Ibid., p. 593.

67 Willoughby, The American Constitutional System, New York, 1904 (Amer. State Series), p. 37; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419.

68 Willoughby, pp. 172, 288.

69 Westlake, Part 2, p. 201.

70 Wheaton, Elements, Appendix 4, p. 960, et seq. especially pp. 968, 969.

71 Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 581, also Vol. 2, sec. 258, p. 593; The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheaton, 283; The Gran Para, 7 Wheaton, 471; also Moore, Int. Arbit., Vol. 1, pp. 576-578.

72 Perels, Int. Oeffentl. Seerecht, pp. 302, 304.

73 Hall, p. 645, note 2.

74 Wheaton, p. 722; Westlake, Part 2, p. 199.

75 Hall, page 645, note 2.

76 Hall, op. cit.

77 Perels, Seerecht, p. 304; Calvo, Le Droit International Theoretique et Pratique, secs. 3041, 3042; Bluntschli, Das Moderne Völkerrecht der Civilisirten Staaten, secs. 842, 845; Wehberg, p. 319; Wheaton, p. 669, note 200; pp. 678, 975; Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 580; Vol. 7, sec. 1223, p. 588.

78 Wheaton, pp. 678-679; Trendelenburg, Friedrichs des Grossen Verdienst um das Völkerrecht im Seekrieq, Berlin, 1866, p. 12.

79 Moore, Vol. 2, sec. 254, p. 580; The Alerta v. Moran (Mar. 10, 1815), 9 Cranch, 359, 364.

80 Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1223, p. 588; The Invincible, 1 Wheat. 238.

81 Wheaton, p. 669, note 201, p. 962.

82 Halleck, Int. Law, Vol. 2, 3d ed. by Baker, p. 405, cited in Moore, Vol. 7, sec. 1224, p. 591.

83 Westlake, Part 2, p. 215, who is opposed to this.

84 Wheaton, pp. 673, 972.

85 Wheaton, p. 972 (the conclusiveness of sentences of condemnation upon the property is cited from the decisions of Judge Story).

86 Ibid., pp. 673-675, 681-682.

87 Wheaton, p. 679 Tredelenburg, pp. 8, 16.

88 Ibid., pp. 681-682.