Thomas Erskine Holland

While the several delegations are vying with one another in devising new definitions of contraband, there would seem to be little likelihood that the British proposal for its total abandonment will be seriously entertained.

A complete body of law, by which States have agreed to be bound, must, one would think, necessarily precede the establishment of a mixed Court by which that law is to be interpreted.

But what shall we say of certain proposals for revolutionising the law of prize, which still remain for consideration, notably for the establishment of an international Court of Appeal, and for the abolition of contraband?

The settlement of the law of prize must necessarily precede any general resort to an international prize Court; and if the coming Hague Conference does no more than settle some of the most pressing of these questions, it will have done…

The moral which I would venture to draw is, therefore, that although questions of fact, arising out of capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a tribunal of arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as to which nations take…

The destruction of the property may have been a meritorious act towards his own Government; but still the person to whom the property belongs must not be a sufferer ... if the captor has by the act of destruction conferred a benefit upon…

In any case, the owner of neutral property, not proved to be good prize, is entitled to the fullest compensation for his loss.

It is much to be desired that the practice should be, by future international agreement, absolutely forbidden--- that the lenity of British practice in this respect should become internationally obligatory.

Still more unwarrantable is the Russian claim to interfere with the trade in raw cotton.

On the contrary, the Admiralty Manual of 1888 allows destruction of enemy vessels only; and goes so far in the direction of liberality as to order the release, without ransom, of a neutral prize which either from its condition, or from…

It may, however, be doubted whether public opinion is sufficiently well informed to be capable of estimating the comparative gravity of the acts which are just now attracting attention.

Le câble télégraphique sous-marin qui unit deux territoires neutres est inviolable.

International precedents are made by diplomatic action (or deliberate inaction) with reference to facts, not by those facts themselves.

Still less permissible would be the cutting of a cable connecting two neutral ports, although messages may pass through it which, by previous and subsequent stages of transmission, may be useful to the enemy.

The cutting, elsewhere than in the enemy's waters, of a cable connecting enemy with neutral territory receives no countenance from international law.

Just as an invader would without scruple interrupt messages, and even destroy telegraphic plant, on land, so may he thus act within the enemy's territorial waters, or, perhaps, even so far from shore as he could reasonably place a…

Telegraphic communication with the outside world may well be as important to a State engaged in warfare as similar means of communication between one point and another within its own territory.

It is perhaps reasonable that, in settling these terms, preponderant weight should have been given to the requirements of belligerents, engaged possibly in a life-and-death struggle.

The question is a new one, but, though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by certain well-established principles of international law, which, it is hardly necessary to remark, is no cut-and-dried system but a body…

A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral territories is inviolable.

It would be very useful if the various States would come to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury to, submarine cables in the high seas is an offence under the Law of Nations, and to fix precisely the wrongful…

They must be restored, and compensation must be arranged for them at the peace.

The three-mile distance has, no doubt, become inadequate in consequence of the increased range of modern cannon, but no other can be substituted for it without express agreement of the Powers.

These, it was pointed out, would superadd to the risk of capture and confiscation, to which a blockade-runner is admittedly liable, the novel penalty of total destruction of the ship and all on board.

It is certain that no international usage sanctions the employment by one belligerent against the other of mines, or other secret contrivances, which would, without notice, render dangerous the navigation of the high seas.