NATIONALITY OF SHIPS—TRANSFERS OF FLAG 431 
chaser’s commercial domicile was in Turkey and that he had 
never taken any steps to divest himself of that domicile. The 
decision therefore involved a question of domicile rather than 
the validity of the transfer of the ship. 
Sec. 325. Transfer from German to Turkish Registry 
After Armistice with Turkey. Differing somewhat from the 
case of the Colonia was that of the Souhl ex Corcovado? a ship 
belonging to the Hamburg-American Line and sold to a Turkish 
company acting for the Turkish government in November, 1918, 
between the dates of the armistice with Turkey and that with 
Germany and transferred to the Turkish flag under the name of 
the Souhl. She was captured by a French cruiser in the harbor 
oi Constantinople Jan. 31, 1919. Under the terms of the armi- 
stice German ships still remained liable to capture whereas 
Turkish ships did not. The transfer was held by the French 
Prize Council to have been invalid, mainly on the basis of the 
reglement of July 26, 1778, “still in force” and upon which the 
Prize Council had already held the transfer of the Dacia to be 
invalid. Considering, it said, that the purpose of the said régle- 
ment was to prevent belligerents from evading the principle 
laid down by the marine ordinance of August, 1681, according 
to which all enemy ships are good prize, there was place to 
apply the réglement “in all its spirit and to treat as fraudulent 
every sale having the object contemplated, whatever the date 
at which it may have been made.” Consequently the sale must 
be regarded as having been made to withdraw the vessel from 
the risk of capture to which it was exposed. 
Sec. 326. Conclusions. It will be seen from this review 
of prize jurisprudence relative to the transfer of flags that the 
prize tribunals of all the belligerent countries, except those of 
Great Britain, interpreted rigorously the rules governing trans- 
fers and that practically no transfers made during the war were 
sustained as valid. Even when claimants were given the benefit 
of the provisions of the Declaration of London those provisions 
were interpreted in such a manner as to make it impossible for 
claimants to discharge to the satisfaction of the Prize Court 
the burden of proof that was placed upon them. The German 
and French prize tribunals insisted that claimants were bound 
to prove that all contested transfers made subsequent to the 
outbreak of war would have been made just the same had not 
war supervened and that claimants must also prove that the 
‘See Sec. 324, supra. 2127 Rev. Gén. (1920), Jurispr. 60.