The times., 1898-04-25
THE LAW OF NATIONS.
The Position of Neuirais During
HOStiIifies Defined.

! thorities on international law:
! In view of the paramount Importance OF
the exact Interpretation of international
/ law as to the position of neutrals and bel
! ligerents during naval warfare, | have
consulted several of the highest authori-
| ties in England and among these three
| men who have had eminent practical ex-
! perience as counsel or commissioners at
various arbtrations. These are Mr.. Ar
| thur Cohen, queens counsel, who has
! been many years in Parliament, and who
! was, with the late Lord Seborne. British
| counsel at the Alabama arbitration, and
who is held to be the greatest living au-
thority in England on international law;
Mr.. Charles Russell, son of the Lord
| Chief Justice, who was member of Par
lament for Londonderry and a barrister,
and who made international law spe-
| cialty, and Mr.. Baden-Powell
Mr. Cohen said: THE rules of interna-
tioral law on this subject, as far as they
exist. are, in my opinion, stated with mas
terly accuracy and clearnesS in the first
volume of Kents Commentaries and in
the notes on that work by your distin-
guished judge, Justice Holmes, of Massa-
chusetts
In this work the right to seize the
property of belligerents on neutral yes
sells in cases where the rule free ships
make free goods does not apply has been
clearly laid down on pages 125 to 133. 1t
is no violation of international law for a
neutral vessel to carry the goods OF either
belligerent, not being contraband. But in
ply the fact of carrying the enemy's
goods renders a neutral vessel liable to
be detained and brought into prize port.
Neither the United States nor Spain is
bound by the Declaration of Paris, and
unless Spain chooses or is induced or
forced by the neutral powers to adhere to
the rule that free ships make free goods
she can search and detain neutral vessels
carrying the enemy's goods.
As regards contraband of war all
that can be said on the rules governing
this subject may be found on pages 13e
to 143 of Kent's Commentaries and in a
recent statement of the Attorney General
in the House of Commons. Coal and food
may. under certain circumstances, be
considered contraband, and will general
ly be so considered If going to supply
the fleets or naval stores of belligerent
power.
ut is a question of American consti-
tutional law and not of international
law. whether the United States can re-
nounce the right of employing privateers.
but it seems that there is no ground
whatever for doubling that the United
States is at liberty to renounce that
right. The United States has done moth
ing to prevent itself adhering or refus-
ing to adhere to the declaration of Paris
Whether the neutral powers can insist
on the United States and Spain conform
f-,rr ~ 4
! in my opinion, depend rather upon condi-
tions and policy and not on international
law"
Mr.. Charles Russell said: II disclaim
any right to speak with authority on in
ternational law; still. l may be allowed
/ to point out that both the United States
and Spain enjoyed full benefit of the
: declaration of Paris during the war of
1870 at the hands of France and Ger
many. This seems to me 10 be additional
reason for them now to adopt it's pro-
visions. Spain has moreover in for
mer wars also adopted the declaration of
Paris. Why, therefore, snould she not do
so now?"
Mr.. Baden Powell said: ~ have been
officially connected with the Newfouna-
land fisheries dispute. the Bay of Fundy
question and the Behring arbitration
and in the course of my many sojourns
in the United States I have come in per
sonal contact with the leading political
and judicial luminaries. | cordially agree
with what ! believe to be the United
States view as to the immunity of private
property from seizure on the high seas
The only civilized methol of capturing
private resources of the enemy is an eff
fectiye blockade. 1 think 1t would be
grave error on the part of Great Britain
not to join the United States in making
effective these two points of international
law. | think the United States are wise
in discOuntenancing privateerirg.
Mr.. Reid said: THE United States de-
clared long ago in fact at the time OF
| the declaration of Paris, that they wish
ed not merely to go as far that in
s-rument but to abolish the right to cap
ture private property at sea, except con-
traband, altogether. That proposal was
never accepted by the powers. which l
think. is much to be regretted. | hope
the present war may lead the powers to
1 consider the Dropriety of assimilating
laws regarding the capture of private
property at sea to that on land. Mean
while. the United States agreeing to OBJ
serve the declaration of Paris is giving
an admirable example. / deeply regrec
/ the war, and hope the outcome will re-
suit in some tangible benefit to mankind -
II know there is no interna tional law
and no English municipal law TO prevent
British merchant ships carrying goods or
even contraband of war for the subjects
of either belligerent, but the carriers cat
ry the goods on their own risk ana cannot
| look for protection to their own govern
ments if the cargo Is seized. The British
government has no legal power and is
under no international obligation TO pre-
1 vent British subjects engaging IN such
! trade. The Declaration of Paris is ap-
piled. by the express terms of .nat dcC,a-
ration only 10 those powers that adhere
to il. AS a matter of law, therefore, the
! Declaration of Paris does not in MY
opinion, prevent Spain and America
searching and seiZing cargoes belonging
/ TO the enemy on neutral vessels. War
ships might, iii accordance with the an
cient law of nations. compel captured
ships to carry the cargo 10 a port of
safety, where the cargo can ne con-
demned and sold.
Owners of captured ships bearing the
enemy's cargo not contraband are enti-
| tied to the freight which they would have
| received. This freight would be charged
on the proceeds of the sale; but as mat
/ ter of fact they have no right To other
cor pensation.
| Il. CT mot be said that there is any
! decision or a universally accep- I'd author
/ ity as 10 whether coal and food FOR bel
/ lige-cuts are contra band of war. So far
as food is concerned, the tendency Is to
! relax the law as administered by Lord
/ Howell, who said that cheese consigned
to Brest when the French ships were pro-
visioned was contraband. Great Britain
protested against the proposal by France
to treat rice as contraband of war during
| the hostilities in Southern China in 1855.
In the case of coal, the British view
| is that coal is only cOntraband of war
when consigned to a port of naval equip
ment or otherwise for use of the fleet.
! Thus would probably be regarded coal