SHOULD TAKE INTERNED SHIPS

In an article in yesterday's New York Times, Professor Albert Bushnell Hart '80 sets forth clearly the facts of the case concerning the German merchantmen interned in our harbors. At the end of his argument he comes to the conclusion that the United States should without delay take over all such vessels.

In a summary of the treaties and international law bearing on the case, Professor Hart points out that it is clear that any provision therein made or proposed was for the purpose of giving "to innocent owners of vessels and cargoes which happen to be caught in what becomes an enemy's port an opportunity to save their ships and lading." Neither the treaties nor the law, however, foresaw nor took account of the peculiar circumstances of the German ships in the ports of the United States.

These special conditions are summarized as follows:

1. The German ships which have been lying in our harbors since war began without a chance of reaching a home port have received, and as far as possible, carried out orders from the German Government to the effect that they be disabled so that for many months they would not be able to go to sea. The utmost that could be expected by these ships would be permission to leave port within a few days after hostilities began, Disabled vessels, not able to fulfill this condition, could expect no immunity.

2. If the vessels should clear our ports they would be captured by the British as soon as they were outside the three-mile limit, or they would be sunk by their commanders to escape capture. Any vessel which by chance slipped through the blockade would without doubt attempt to supply submarines or other warships, and to co-operate with them in attacks on American ships and coasts.

3. The German vessels have been centres of plots against the United States which will continue as long as the crews are allowed to remain on board.

These facts present a good case for the seizure of the merchantmen even in time of peace, and a far stronger case will result at the outbreak of war. "No German merchantmen should be permitted under any circumstances to leave our ports, and they should be immediately taken out of the hands of their officers and crews."

The question remains as to whether the United States has the right to confiscate these boats and put them to public uses.

In the case of the Armitz Brown in 1814 the Supreme Court handed down the opinion that the sovereignity of the United States extended to the confiscation of enemy property, and stated that "a declaration of war does not in itself enact a confiscation of the property of the enemy--but that power of confiscating enemy property is in the legislature." Professor Hart points out that in any event the war powers of the President would allow him to take over the ships and leave the question of their confiscation to be settled later.

In conclusion, Professor Hart says: "The United States from ocean to ocean is grieved and shocked at the prospect of war with Germany, and would have accepted any honorable settlement; but it would be dishonorable to allow our commerce to be destroyed or excluded from the high seas as the price of peace. The behavior of the officers and crews of the German merchant ships in our ports is one of the many proofs that it is impossible to preserve peace with a nation which so contemns the dignity, rights, and laws of the American Union.