CO885-(15-16) — Page 175

攒

9869.

No. 127A.

(BERMUDA.)

[Seizure of Escaped Prisoners of War.]

CASE.

.

The following is a copy of a letter from the War Office to the Admiralty :

War Office, London, S.W.,

December 28, 1901.

SIR,

THE Secretary of State for War is informed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the Attorney-General of Bermuda has submitted, through the Governor of that Colony, certain doubts which he feels as to legal points connected with the presence in those islands of Boer prisoners of war.

Amongst these points is the question whether the Naval or Military Authorities have the right to search British or foreign ships suspected of having escaped prisoners on board, and, if so, whether the right would extend to the case of a foreign ship outside the three mile limit.

I am to request that you will submit these points to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and will represent to their Lordships that Mr. Secretary Brodrick would be glad to be favoured with their observations thereon.

I lave, &c.,

G. FLEETWOOD WILSON.

The Secretary to the Admiralty.

The Admiralty observe that the above letter raises the question of the status of an escaped prisoner of war who has taken refuge in a neutral vessel which is-

(a) in British territorial waters

(6) on the high seas—

and have instructed the Treasury Solicitor to request the Law Officers' advice upon the

matter.

Copies of opinions of the Law Officers, dated December 16th, 1899, and January 25th, 1900, and of 26th March, 1900,† have been obtained from the Colonial and Foreign Offices respectively, and accompany the present case.

As regards the question whether the jurisdiction of the local Sovereign over all persons and private ships within his territorial waters, extends to justify the recapture of escaped prisoners of war on board neutral ships, it is observed that in paragraph 1 of the opinion of 16th December, 1899, the Law Officers state with regard to neutral vessels in British territorial waters or British ports that "We believe the true view of International Law is that enemies might be seized on board such vessels when they are so within British territory, but having regard to the class of questions which arise, we think that seizure in such cases should only be effected if the necessity be very urgent."

With respect to neutral ships on the high seas it is stated in Walker's Manual of Public International Law, p. 167, that during the sitting of the Conference of Brussels on August 3rd, 1874, the delegate of the Netherlands raised the question whether a neutral Government is under any obligation to either of the belligerents with regard to prisoners of war who may escape into neutral territory. The opinion of the military delegates was that if a belligerent is unable to take care of his prisoners it is not the duty of the neutral Government to do so for him.

The Law Officers discuss, in the Opinion of the 26th March, 1900, on the Foreigu Office case, the grounds upon which a ship carrying persons in enemy's military service, or on their way to join such service, would be guilty of a breach of International Law and liable to seizure, and the further question as to the circumstances which, in such case, would render the vessel liable to be condemned.

In paragraph I of the same opinion the Law Officers pointed out that the test whether the carriage of persons in the civil employment of the enemy renders the vessel liable to

No. 242A in Vol. V.

11294-25-3/1902 Wt 352 D & S 5

† Nos. 13 and 264.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PEPEC.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

| COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO