a suspicious vessel may still be a pirate although she shows a flag, she may further be stopped and visited for the purpose of inspecting her papers and thereby verifying the flag. It is, however, quite obvious that this power belonging to men-of-war must not be abused, and that the home State is responsible for damages in case a man-of-war stops and visits a foreign merchantman without sufficient ground of suspicion. The right of every State to punish piracy on the open sea will be treated below, §§ 272-280. (3) So-called Right of Pursuit.-It is a universally recognised customary rule that men-of-war of a littoral State can pursue into the open sea, seize, and bring back into a port for trial, any foreign merchantman that has violated the law whilst in the territorial waters of that State. But such pursuit into the open sea is permissible only if commenced while the merchantman is still within those territorial waters or has only just escaped thence, and the pursuit must stop as soon as the merchantman passes into the maritime belt of another State.1 (4) Abuse of Flag.2-It is another universally recog given occasion to much dispute and discussion, but in fact nobody denies that in case of grave suspicion it does exist. See Twiss, i. § 193; Hall, § 81; Fiore, ii. Nos. 732-736; Perels, § 17; Taylor, § 266; Bonfils, No. 585. 1 See Hall, § 80. The four exceptions mentioned in the text above are based on universally recognised customary rules of the Law of Nations. It is, of course, possible for States to enter into treaty agreements, giving to the men-of-war of each additional powers over merchantmen belonging to the others on the open sea. Under such agreements, the following additional exceptions may be enumerated, which are, however, not universal: (1) In the interest of the suppression of the slave trade, the signatory Powers of the General Act of the Brussels Conference of 1890 stipulated that their men-of-war should have the power, in certain parts of the open sea where slave traffic still continued, to stop every suspect vessel under 500 tons. This General Act was, however, abrogated by a convention signed at St. Germain on September 10, 1919. The new convention does not contain any similar provision. (2) In the interest of the fisheries in the North Sea, special cruisers of the littoral Powers control all fishing vessels and bumboats. See below, §§ 282 and 283. (3) In the interest of Transatlantic telegraph cables, men-of-war of the signatory Powers of the treaty for the protection of such cables have certain powers over merchantmen. See below, § 287. How Veri nised rule that men-of-war of every State may seize, § 267. A man-of-war which meets a suspicious merfication of chantman not showing her colours and wishes to verify Flag is effected. them, hoists her own flag, and fires a blank cartridge. How Visit is effected. This is a signal for the other vessel to hoist her flag in reply. If she takes no notice of the signal, the man-ofwar fires a shot across her bows. If the suspicious vessel, in spite of this warning, still declines to hoist her flag, the suspicion becomes so grave that the man-of-war may compel her to bring to for the purpose of visiting her, and thereby verifying her nationality. § 268. The intention to visit may be communicated to a merchantman either by hailing, or by the informing gun '—that is, by firing either one or two blank cartridges. If the vessel takes no notice of this communication, a shot may be fired across her bows as a signal to bring to, and, if this also has no effect, force may be resorted to. After the vessel has been brought to, either an officer is sent on board for the purpose inspecting her papers, or her master is ordered to bring his ship papers for inspection on board the man-of-war. of 1 Except as a ruse, in time of war, to escape capture by a belligerent man-of-war. If the inspection proves the papers to be in order, a memorandum of the visit is made in the log book, and the vessel is allowed to proceed on her course. effected. § 269. Search is naturally a measure which visit How must always precede. It is because the visit has given Search is no satisfaction that search is instituted. Search is effected by an officer and some of the crew of the manof-war, the master and crew of the vessel to be searched not being compelled to render any assistance whatever, except to open locked cupboards and the like. The search must take place in an orderly way, and no damage must be done to the cargo. If the search proves everything to be in order, the searching party must carefully replace everything removed, a memorandum of the search is to be made in the log book, and the searched vessel is to be allowed to proceed on her course. Arrest is § 270. Arrest of a vessel takes place either after visit How and search have shown her liable thereto, or after she effected. has committed some act which is sufficient in itself to justify her seizure. Arrest is effected through the commander of the arresting man-of-war appointing one of her officers and a part of her crew to take charge of the arrested vessel. This officer is responsible for the vessel, and for her cargo, which must be kept safe and intact. The arrested vessel, either accompanied by the arresting vessel or not, must be brought to such harbour as is determined by the cause of the arrest. Thus, neutral or enemy ships seized in time of war are always 1 to be brought into a harbour of the flag State of the captor. And the same is the case in time of peace, when a vessel is seized because her flag cannot be verified, or because she was sailing under no flag at all. On the other hand, when a fishing vessel or a bumboat is arrested in the North Sea, she is always to be brought into a harbour 1 1 Except in the case of distress or unseaworthiness; see below, vol. ii. $193. Shipwreck and Dis tress on Sea. of her flag State and handed over to the authorities there.1 § 271. Goods and persons shipwrecked on the open sea do not thereby lose the protection of the flag State of the shipwrecked vessel. Even before 1910 no State the Open might recognise appropriation by its subjects of abandoned foreign vessels and other derelicts on the open sea. But every State could by its Municipal Law enact that those of its subjects who took possession of abandoned vessels and of shipwrecked goods need not restore them to their owners without salvage, whether the act of taking possession occurred on the open sea or within its territorial waters and on its shore. 3 The Brussels Convention of 1910 for the unification of certain rules of law respecting assistance and salvage at sea,' 3 recognises the right to salvage, and contains a uniform set of rules to be applied by municipal courts exercising jurisdiction in actions for salvage and claims arising out of assistance rendered to vessels in distress. Such modification in English law as was needed to give effect to its provisions was carried out by the Maritime Conventions Act of 1911.3 As regards vessels in distress, the same Brussels Convention contains, in Article 11, a provision that every master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her passengers and crew, to render assistance to every person, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost. The owner of the vessel, however, incurs no liability through disobedience to this provision. Nor does it apply to ships of war, nor to government ships exclusively appropriated to the public service.5 Most States, however, by their 1 See below, §§ 282 and 283. 2 See Phillimore, iv. § 815; Dicey, Conflict of Laws (2nd ed. 1908), p. 791; and Halsbury, The Laws of England: Wreck, vol. xxvi. p. 548. See also §§ 545 and 565 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. 4 Wireless signals of distress are discussed below in §§ 287a, 2876. 5 See Article 14. municipal regulations, order their men-of-war to render assistance to any vessel found in distress at sea. V PIRACY Hall, $ 81-82-Westlake, i. pp. 181-186-Lawrence, § 102-Phillimore, i. $$ 356-361-Twiss, i. § 177 and ii. § 193-Halleck, i. pp. 476-483Taylor, $$ 188-189-Walker, § 21-Wheaton, §§ 122-124-Moore, ii. $ 311-315-Hershey, Nos. 213-215-Bluntschli, §§. 343-350-Heffter, § 104-Gareis in Holtzendorff, ii. pp. 571-581-Gareis, § 58-Liszt, § 26 -Ullmann, § 104-Bonfils, Nos. 592-594-Despagnet, Nos. 431-433Mérignhac, ii. pp. 506-511-Pradier-Fodéré, v. Nos. 2491-2515-Rivier, i. pp. 248-251-Calvo, i. §§ 485-512-Fiore, i. Nos. 494-495, and Code, Nos. 300-305-Perels, §§ 16-17-Testa, pp. 90-97-Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer (1856), i. pp. 231-253-Stiel, Der Tatbestand der Piraterie (1905)-Sebert in Z.I., xxvi. (1915), pp. 8-70. tion of § 272. Piracy, in its original and strict meaning, is Concep every unauthorised act of violence committed by a Piracy. private vessel on the open sea against another vessel with intent to plunder (animo furandi). The majority of writers confine piracy to such acts, which indeed are the normal cases of piracy. But there are cases possible which are not covered by this narrow definition, and yet they are treated in practice as though they were cases of piracy. Thus, if the members of the crew revolt and convert the ship, and the goods thereon, to their own use, they are considered to be pirates, although they have not committed an act of violence against another ship. Again, if unauthorised acts of violence, such as murder of persons on board the attacked vessel, or destruction of goods thereon, are committed on the open sea without intent to plunder, such acts are in practice considered to be piratical. Therefore several writers,1 correctly, I think, oppose the usual definition 1 Hall, § 81; Lawrence, § 102; Bluntschli, § 343; Liszt, § 26; Calvo, $485. |