274 HARVARD LAW REVIEW In The Messicano ^^ Sir Samuel Evans, following the authority of The Broadmayne ^ without discussion, refused to allow the arrest of a private ship requisitioned by a foreign government under a hiring arrangement. The Eolo ^' presented similar facts and the ship was released. The chief point argued was whether the vessel had been requisitioned within the meaning of previous cases. On this issue O'Connor, M. R., said, "As I understand these authori- ties they govern the case of a ship sailing under the order of a sovereign State, for State purposes, and for a limited time." The United States Circuit Court of Appeals upon similar facts reached a different result. In The Attualita,^ the ship which was Hbelled had been reqxiisitioned by the Italian Government, but remained in the custody and control of her owners. The court re- tained jurisdiction of the hbel on the ground that the Italian gov- ernment was not responsible "at law or in morals" for the acts of the libeled ship. The court overlooked the fact that when a foreign government requests the release of a ship from the process of a foreign court, it obligates itself "in morals," as fully as if it were the owner, to answer for the acts of the ship. The case, moreover, is contra to the dictum of Judge Hough in The Athanasios,^^ and the dictum of Judge Thompson in The Luigi.^ The system under which our government is operating the rail- roads is very similar to the status of requisitioned ships. The same features exist of government rental from private owners and of private management under government direction. President Wilson's proclamation of December 26, 1917, taking possession and control of rail and transportation systems, provided that, except with the prior written assent of the director of railroads, there should be no attachment levied on "any of the property used by any of said transportation systems in the conduct of their business as common carriers." Section 10 of the Act approved March 21, 1918, in which Congress regulated the operation of the transportation systems while under federal control, provided that "no process, mesne or final, shall be levied against any prop- erty under such Federal control." In any case involving proceed- « 32 T. L. R. 519 (1916). *2 Supra. ^ Supra. ** Supra. « 228 Fed. 558 (1915). *' 230 Fed. 493 (1916).
