ARMED TRAWLERS AND SALVAGE 



tention of the defendants that the plaintiffs, being 

 the commanders, officers, and crews of King's ships, 

 are not entitled to an}- salvage against the Swedish 

 ship, because she was carrying cargo for the French 

 Government. The contention is that the plaintiffs 

 were under a dut}^ to save the propert}' of an Allied 

 Government, and the saving of the ship was a mere 

 incident in the saving of the cargo. It is also said 

 that the saving was not from maritime, but from 

 war perils. 



" I have already found that the crew refused to 

 return to their ship. It is clear therefore that the 

 saving was not only from submarine attack but also 

 from maritime perils. But for the assistance of the 

 plaintiffs the Carrie would have been left in the 

 open sea with no one on board. The plaintiffs 

 brought her into port. No doubt the ship was 

 being saved from maritime perils. She was also 

 saved from enemy attack ; but she was not saved 

 only from enemy attack. 



" The question is whether the plaintiffs are en- 

 titled to salvage for saving the ship from maritime 

 perils, and perhaps also whether the Court ought 

 to take into account the saving from war perils. 

 Assuming that the cargo was the property of the 

 French Government, and assuming also that it is 

 the duty of the officers and crews of King's ships 

 to protect the property of Allied Governments, I do 

 not think that that makes the service qua the neutral 

 ship any less a salvage service. . . . Assuming 

 that the plaintiffs were under a duty to the cargo, I 



129 



i 



