vi, to which they are not a party.

It is therefore superfluous to inquire what construction they would have been bound to put upon the ambiguous language of Section 1 of the Convention, which proclaims that "when a merchant ship of one of the belligerent Powers is, at the commencement of hostilities, in an enemy port, _it is desirable_ that it should be allowed to depart freely," &c.

It might perhaps be argued that our own Prize Court might well have refrained from treating this section as if it were obligatory, and have founded its decisions rather upon international law, as supplemented by a non-obligatory custom.

Be this as it may, it would seem that the policy of the United States has to some extent felt the influence of Convention vi.

in announcing that seizure will, provisionally, only amount to requisitioning.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, April 7 (1917)..