New-York tribune., 1885-03-07
certificates, that difficulty might also in part De
pcorySJOys rs cON7RABAND.

Tho renorted firm declaration OF Lord Gran
Vile. regarding the French decree making rice
imnorted to or exported from certain Ch'nese
norts contraband of wal, presumably derives
;ts nos;tive character from the illegitimacy OF
tho French situation in China generally. FoT
Tho law of nations on this head is so indefinite
that while modern usage may DC said 10 po
distinctly against the French POSITION YET there
ia no authoritative ruling on the other slde. III
times past many governments have deciareo
provisions contraband of war, rs France ala III
1894. and as Napoleon at subsequent perioo
did. England also by orders in Council retail
ated in the same way, and the United States ana
Denmark almost alone resisted belligerent de-
creos which inflicted serious injury on neutrals.
Subsequently the principle of pre-emption was
emnloved "a sort of compromise, and both Eng
land and the United States recognized 1t. 1his
method however, which consists in seizlnS
goods on neutral ships and paying for them, Is
contrary to the spirit of the rules adopted Dy
tho Congress- of Paris in 1856, and WOOlsey
condemns it on the ground that "it almost
q reaches the position that paper blockades are
adefensible. 1t says, will take your wheat
q from Won whether you are bound to block
AIDED mort or not" Bluntschli indeed goes
further than most publicists, and says; "lt Is
aagainst good usage to treat the trade I'D pro-
q visions as contraband of war, although the
asame serves for the use of the hostile army"
The rules of the Treaty of Paris declare that
a(2.) The neutral flag covers enemy's goods,
swith the exception of contraband OF war. t3.)
aNeutral goods with the exception OF contra
aband of war, are not liable to capture under an
aenemy's flag. a. Blockade. in order to DC
Gbinding. must be effective; that is 10 say
maintained by a force sufficient really 10 pre-
vent access to the coast of the enemy" lt Is
evident that the application of the first two Oh
these rules depends altogether upon what con-
traband of war is. Aud in practice that Is
usually determined by the power OF the
belligerent who wishes to extend the scope OF
contraband articles to deiy the maritime
neutral Powers that may resist the extension
But the fourth rule certainly applies directly TO
the French situation in China. Inc frehch
blockade is not an effective ard therefore not
binding blockade and, moreover, 1t has been
declared without q declaration OF war, when Is
under the best usage necessary, at least Us "
formal notification to neutrals. In short, France
has proceeded throughout in neglect OF inter
national law, and now she proposes to make
provisions contraband, thus revcrtlng u
n usage which was considered wrong two
centuries ago. and for which at this time nc
justification exists.
Should she persist in her declaration, it is evl'
dent that neutrals will have good cause OF action
against her for indemnity hereafter, and the re-
suit of the Alabama cases will perhaps convince
her that no government in these days can hope
to escape at least pecuniary penalties foi
breaches of international comfy. The United
States has for the most part taken the position
now supported by Lord Granville. and Amerl'
can interests in China undoubtedly require that
the rights of neutrals in regard to the provision
trade. whether inward or outward, should be
respected by the belligerents.