CAPTURE OF ENEMY PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA 305 
He then quoted the opinion of Dana in his edition of 
Wheaton * which he said “not only dealt admirably with the 
distinction between seizure on land and at sea but it also gives 
prominence to the reasons why ‘maritime merchandise’ and 
cargoes’ should be differently regarded.” The quotation from 
Dana concluded as follows: 
“The matter may, then, be summed up thus: merchandise, whether em- 
barked upon the sea or found on land, in which the hostile power has 
some interest for purposes of war, is prima facie a subject of capture. Ves- 
sels and their cargoes are usually of that character. Of the infinite varieties 
of property on shore, some are of this character, and some are not. There 
are very serious objections, of a moral and economical nature, to subjecting 
all property on land to military seizure. These objections have been 
thought sufficient to reverse the prima facie right of capture. To merchan- 
dise at sea, these objections apply with so little force that the prima facie 
right of capture remains.” 
Sir Samuel added: 
RE. 
Lad 
“We start, accordingly, in considering the present case, with the broad 
assumption that all enemy property—ships and cargoes—may, after the out- 
break of war, be captured jure belli on the sea, or in rivers, ports, and 
harbours of this country. (There are other captures which can be made 
which do not concern this case)” 
Upon appeal? the Privy Council affirmed the opinion of Sir 
Samuel. Referring with approval to the above quoted opinion 
of Dana, Lord Parker added: 
“It will be found that Halleck (International Law, Vol. IIL, p. 126) 
states that whatever bears the character of enemy property (with a few 
exceptions, not material for the purpose of this case), if found upon the 
ocean or afloat in port, is liable to capture as a lawful prize by the oppo- 
site belligerent. It is the enemy character of the goods and not the na- 
tionality of the ship on which they are embarked or the date of embarka- 
tion which is the criterion of lawful prize. This is in full accordance with 
Lord Stowell’s statement in the Rebeckah of the manner in which the 
Order of 1665 defining admiralty droits has been construed bv usage.” 
Sec. 237. The Same (Continued). The Chinese Prize Court 
In the case of the Silesia ® affirmed that it was “an inherent right” 
of a belligerent to capture enemy ships and cargoes and the 
German Supreme Prize Court in the case of the Glitra asserted 
that “the seizure and capture of an enemy ship was as against 
! 8th ed., 1866, note 171, p. 451. 
* 11 Lloyd 385; I Br. & Col. Pr. Cas. 536. : : 
* Cheng, Judgments of the High Prize Court of the Republic of China, 88.