PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
:| ། ༄། །
C.O.
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
2
3. That the decision of the Prize Court of the port of Vladivostock shall be annulled as regards the confiscation of the said steamer and cargo.
(The full texts of the judgments of both Courts are inclosed in packet (B).) The owners of the "Allanton" thereupon sent a claim to the Foreign Office amounting to £39.000. Upon this it was pointed out to them that, under paragraph 8% of the Russian Regulations, claims for compensation should be presented to a Port Prize Court. This they admitted, but observed that under paragraph 30 of the same Regulations "a special indemnity may be awarded to the original owner for losses caused by the seizure of the property when it is recognized that the property was srized without sufficient reason," but that, inasmuch as the Supreme Court had decided that the "Allanton" had, in fact, been detained on sufficient grounds, they were precluded from all chance of recovering a claim through a Port Prize Court, any proceedings in which were foredoomed to failure, and they therefore urged that their claim should be presented diplomatically.
The claim was therefore carefully scrutinized with the aid of a shipping expert, reduced by about £20,000, and forwarded to Sir C. Hardinge in March last, with instructions to present it to the Russian Government and press for its early
settlement.
Sir Charles Hardinge, who had meanwhile consulted with M. Scheftel, the Advocate, who had represented the owners of the "Allanton" before the Court of Appeal, still remained of opinion that the legal remedy should be employed first. He maintained that even if Mr. Rea was precluded from obtaining compensation for the detention of the vessel for the period between the date of capture and the hearing of the Vladivostock Court, such an argument could not hold good for the further period of detention which terminated with the release of the ship. He thought this argument should be worked up and presented to a Port Prize Court, and if ignored or disputed by that Court, then would come the proper time for diplomatic inter-
vention.
When the advance of the Japanese forces rendered it impossible for Prize Court "proceedings to be commenced at Vladivostock, an effort was made to get the Russian Government to nominate some other Tribunal, but this they declined to do, although Count Lamsdorff admitted that Vladivostock was unavailable, but the Government maintained that only the Prize Courts themselves could determine questions of their own jurisdiction and competency.
**
Consequently, as the Russian Government would not definitely indicate any Court that was clearly competent and available to entertain the claims of the owner of the Allanton," Sir Charles Hardinge was instructed to present the claim of £18,000 odd to the Russian Government and to request that it might be dealt with forthwith.
In pursuance of these instructions, he has drafted a note for presentation to the Russian Government which is inclosed in his despatch No. 103, Treaty, of the 9th August (see packet (B)).
**
His Excellency, however, urges that the same course should be followed by the Allanton" claimants as that adopted in the case of the German vessel, the “Thea," and states that the owners of that vessel are about to commence proceedings at Libau to recover compensation.
The German steamship "Thea" was sunk on the 25th July, 1904, by the Russian cruiser squadron. The Prize Court at Vladivostock examined the case on the 11th August, and found both ship and cargo a lawful prize, apparently on the ground that she had been chartered on the 12th March for nine months by the Japanese "Hakoi Sannyo Hossi" Company, and had thus lost her neutral character, while the cargo, consisting of fish, fat, and oil, represented every property on board a ship which had lost her neutral character, and was therefore liable to confiscation.
On the 3rd December last Sir C. Hardinge telegraphed that the appeal against this sentence had been heard that day, and the sentence annulled. No motives were given, but the apparent reason was " question as to cargo."
His Excellency added that the question of right to sink was not raised.
Sir C. Hardinge reported on the 18th June last that the German Ambassador at St. Petersburgh had lodged the owners' claim at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and had been officially informed that the owners must present the claim to the
proper Prize Court. The Ministry suggested that as it was practically impossible to present the claim at Vladivostock the owners should address themselves to the
3
Prize Court at Libau. In the event of the Prize Court declaring its incompetency the owners would then be justified in demanding that the claim should be decided by the Supreme Prize Court in St. Petersburgh.
It is, however, to be observed that as the Supreme Court at St. Petersburgh annulled the finding of the Vladivostock Court in the case of the "Thea," the chances of a successful issue in any action that may be instituted before the Libau Court for compensation are greater than they would be in the cases of the "Allanton" and "Calchas" where the Supreme Court have held that the capture, &c., was justified.
The Solicitor-General has, however, semi-officially, expressed the opinion that, on the whole, the course advocated by Sir Charles Hardinge as regards the "Allanton" claims may be adopted.
In addition to the claims of the owners of the "Allanton" this Department has been requested by representatives of the Seamen's and Firemen's Union, on behalf of the crew, and by the Merchant Service Guild on behalf of the captain and officers, to put forward certain claims on account of the hardships and risks incurred by them.
If it is ultimately decided to present the larger claims of the owners to a Prize Court the question will arise whether claims on behalf of the officers and crew based on the hardships they endured and the risks they were exposed to, and not on any actual losses, can be brought within the terms of Article 88.
"
Further details with regard to this portion of the "Allanton claim will be found in the papers in packet (C).
The "Calchas.”
This vessel is one of Messrs. Holt's steamers, valued at about £100,000, and was captured by the Vladivostock squadron about the 27th July, 1904. She was on a voyage from Tacoma and Victoria to Japan. She had on board about £1,000 worth of flour consigned to a British firm at Kobé, some timber which the Court held was for shipbuilding, and machinery. The chief hardship of this case is that she was not tried at Vladivostock until the 15th September, forty-nine days at least after her capture, and was, in the interval, taken by the Russian officer in charge to Korsakowsky in the Island of Saghalien. Here 2,000 bags of flour were, by order of Admiral Skrydloff, discharged and left there with the consent of the captain, who was furnished with a receipt. The "Calchas "did not reach Vladivostock, until the 8th August.
The Judges of the Prize Court at that port confiscated the cargo intended for Japanese ports, consisting of 13,300 sacks of flour, 36 bales of cotton, and 97 pieces of rough timber. The cargo consigned to neutral ports-in quantity 3,423,413 lbs. and 41,610 cubic feet-was ordered to be released at once.
With regard to seventy pieces of machinery on board, the Prize Court decided that they were not to be regarded as destined for warlike purposes until the expira- tion of three months in which the owners might appeal.
This ship was not condemned, but her release was refused till the time had expired (one month) to allow the captor to appeal. The case has formed unfavour- able comparison with that of the "Arabia," a German vessel with a similar cargo. also captured, but released in twelve days. The captor appealed against the non- condemnation of the "Calchas on the ground that she carried enemy despatches. The ship accordingly could not be released without bail. Though undoubtedly a very hard case, there was just sufficient technical justification for the vessel's detention to make it difficult for His Majesty's Government to accede to the request of the owners and demand its unconditional release. From reports received by the owners from the captain, it is believed that the Russian authorities really wished to pur- chase the vessel at their own price to convert her into a transport. Bail was. however, ultimately accepted by the Russian Government and the vessel released. Appeals were lodged with regard to the condemned cargo of flour. These appeals, together with that in the case of the ship, were heard before the Supreme Admiralty Council at St. Petersburgh.
The vessel was released on appeal (May, 1905), but her arrest and detention were justified by Court. The flour was freed, but the cotton and timber confiscated, the former on the ground that Japanese gun-cotton works existed in the neighbour- hood of the port of consignment. The owners notified to the Foreign Office that a claim for compensation would be presented. The value of the shipment of flour was
23111
A 3