434 PRIZE LAW DURING THE WORLD WAR 
be determined. It furnishes a solution therefore for only a part 
of the problem. Regarding the test to be applied in determining 
the neutral or enemy character of the owner, the powers repre- 
sented at the London Conference were equally divided and no 
agreement could be reached on this fundamental question. 
France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Russia main- 
tained that the sole test was the nationality of the owner; 
Great Britain, the United States, Japan, the Netherlands, and 
Spain, on the other hand, insisted that both nationality and 
domicile should be taken into consideration.! The failure to 
reach an agreement left each party free to apply whichever rule 
it preferred. Article 58 introduced one slight modification of 
the Anglo-American practice, which treated the produce of an 
estate in enemy territory though belonging to a person of neu- 
tral nationality, as having an enemy character. The Article by 
making the enemy character of goods dependent entirely on 
the enemy character of their owner removed the exception to 
the general rule. Since the Declaration of London, though at. 
first put into effect, was subsequently withdrawn, the new rule 
was not binding and in fact the English Prize Courts applied 
the old rule. It may also be observed that the rules of the 
Declaration regarding transfers of ships before and in antici- 
pation of the outbreak of war were not extended to the ante 
bellum transfer of goods, in consequence of which the character 
of goods transferred to a neutral subject under these circum- 
stances would depend upon the national character of the owner 
at the time of capture. The effect of this rule was to supersede 
the doctrine of Lord Stowell that goods transferred in expecta- 
tion of war retain their original character.? But after the with- 
drawal of the Declaration the rule ceased to be binding on the 
Prize Courts, which then applied the traditional doctrine enun- 
ciated by Lord Stowell. 
By Article 59 of the Declaration it was laid down that in the 
absence of proof of the neutral character of goods found on 
board an enemy vessel they are presumed to be enemy goods. 
This rule was in accordance with the general practice and was 
therefore merely declaratory of an existing rule of prize law 
and it was the rule, in fact, applied by the Prize Courts during 
the World War. They all interpreted it as putting the onus 
upon the claimant to prove that the goods were neutral. 
1 Bentwich, the Declaration of London, p. 112. 
2 he Jan Frederick. 5 C. Rob. 128.