PUBLIC
RECORD
minimuilu
OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.8
.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
25596
2,
(4) If your answer to (3) is in the affirmative, whether any, and what, action by way of transferring the proceeds of sale to the account of the Marshal of the Prize Court or otherwise, would be necessary before prize proceedings could properly be instituted against the proceeds of sale.
REPORT.
I am,
&c.,
G. GRINDLE.
used
1. We do not on the whole think that these small craft fall within the Hague Convention No. VI. of 1907. The French word "navire," standing alone, would appear to denote a sea-going vessel, and the expression "navire de commerce in the Convention, is more appropriate to sea-going vessels carrying merchandise from one port to another than to tugs and lighters employed at a particular port.
The English term "merchant ship" is also unsuitable to these small craft. The definition of "Ship" in the Merchant Shipping Acts does not appear to us to affect the matter.
"
3. We are disposed to think that the craft in question were exempt fron capture under Article 3 of Convention No. XI. of 1907 as small boats employed in local trade." If so, some of them have been properly dealt with as assets of the enemy firm to which they belonged, and neither the proceeds of boats sold nor the boats which remain are liable to condemnation.
2 and 4. Upon the above view these questions do not arise.
Law Officers' Department,
27th May, 1916.
FREDERICK SMITH. GEO. CAVE.
33076
(Dominions.)
No. 198A.
(GENERAL.)
"LAW OFFICERS, MR. J. AUSTEN-CARTMELL, AND MR. G. A. H. BRANSON to TREASURY.
[Question whether property belonging to an enemy Sovereign in his personal capacity is confiscate to the Crown.]
1. In our opinion, the presumption is that the King of Bulgaria identified with the State; and the provisions of the Constitution do not displace that pre- sumption. Perhaps they even support it.
However this may be, the reasoning which has led in universal practice to the confiscation of enemy State property applies to the property of an enemy Sovereign, and the reasoning which has led to the discontinuance of the practice in dealing with the private property of enemy individuals does not apply to the property of an enemy Sovereign.
We therefore think that the securities in question may properly be confiscated. Whether such confiscation should take place at once or not is a matter of policy on which we offer no opinion.
2. We think it desirable, as a matter of legal policy, to draw a distinction between the treatment of these securities, and of securities or property which are not claimed as confiscable. Holding this view we need not consider whether in law the obtaining of Orders vesting these securities in the Public Trustee would or might prejudice the position of the Government hereafter.
We recommend that Messrs. Coutts be required to hand over the securities to a nominee of the Crown to be dealt with as His Majesty may hereafter direct.
FREDERICK SMITH. GEO. CAVE.
J. AUSTEN-CARTMELL. G. A. H. BRANSON.
Law Officers' Department,
9th June, 1916.
14434-2.) Wt. 20-1020. 25. 8/16. D&B. G 1