[Footnote 388: See, for instance, Martens, § 126, who moreover makes no difference between the prize being an enemy or a neutral ship.] [Footnote 389: U.S. Naval War Code (article 14) allows the destruction "in case of military or other necessity."] [Footnote 390: See Takahashi, pp. 284-310.] [Footnote 391: The _Actaeon_ (1815), 2 Dod. 48; the _Felicity_ (1819), 2 Dod. 381; the _Leucade_ (1855), Spinks, 217. See also Holland, _Prize Law_, §§ 303-304.] [Footnote 392: The whole matter is thoroughly discussed by Boeck, Nos. 268-285; Dupuis, Nos. 262-268; and Calvo, V. §§ 3028-3034. As regards destruction of a neutral prize, see below, § 431.] But if destruction of a captured enemy merchantman can as an exception be lawful, the question as to indemnities to be paid to the neutral owners of goods carried by the destroyed vessel requires attention. It seems to be obvious that, if the destruction of the vessel herself was lawful, and if it was not possible to remove her cargo, no indemnities need be paid. An illustrative case happened during the Franco-German War. On October 21, 1870, the French cruiser _Dessaix_ seized two German merchantmen, the _Ludwig_ and the _Vorwärts_, but burned them because she could not spare a prize crew to navigate the prizes into a French port. The neutral owners of part of the cargo claimed indemnities, but the French Conseil d'État refused to grant indemnities on the ground that the action of the captor was lawful.[393] [Footnote 393: See Boeck, No. 146; Barboux, p. 153; Calvo, V. § 3033; Dupuis, No. 262; Hall, § 269. Should the International Prize Court at the Hague be established, article 3 of Convention XII. of the Second Peace Conference would enable the owners of neutral goods destroyed with the destroyed enemy merchantmen that carried them to bring the question as to whether they may claim damages before this Court.] [Sidenote: Ransom of Prize.]