The evening times., 1899-12-28

cials express confidence that tho British
Government will make full reparation for
any act committed by its naval agents IL
il turns cut to have been illegal or unjus-
tilted, and they profess a profound convic-
ton that Englishmen are not taking any
hazsrdouE chances just at present OF an
tagonizing any considerable popular ele-
ment in America.
II is not known to the Secretary of State
whether cargoss owned in this country
have actually been confisSsted. nor pre-
cisely what articles Great Britain propcs-
es to regard as contraband during the con-
tinuance OF the South African war. 1t is
said that every nation en- becoming en-
gagged in oz;!lities makes its own rules.
as rigid or lax as the occasion seems to
demand. and seldom takes other nations
into its confidence on the subject. This
was the case when the war with Spain
began. Neither Eation having subscribed
TO tn. privatesring clause of the Treaty of
Paris. a proclamation was issued by the
President. announcing adhesion to its pro-
visions. The Queen Regent issued decree.
which. while reserving the right OF pri-
Watering announced that letters of
marque would not be granted. But Spain
did not announce what course she intend
cd to pursue in other matters. nor did the
United States. except in confidential gen.
eral orders TO naval officers. fix any def
mite policy to seizures and coItraband.
On the receipt of complaints from Amer
lean exporters that their products had
been detained and that their delivery at
the neutral port Of destination, Delagoa
Bay. had been refused the Secretary OF
State Immediately transmitted the com
plants TO Ambassador Choate at London
and Consul Hollis at Pretoria for investi-
CATION and report. These notes went by
mail. and Mr. Choate has barely received
his own BY this time. while that Of Consul
Hollis will scarcely reach him before
March l. 1900. AS agents OF the State De-
partment reply TO communications by the
same mears Of transmission as the origi-
nal query. no official information is apt to
be in the possession of the authorities in
Washington for weeks or months.
The Supreme Court has passed on Ques-
tions somewhat similar to that raised IN
the present case. but which are not ex-
actly the same. In the case of the Peter
hon. a British vessel it was held by the
Supreme Court that goods contrabsnd of
war shipped from a British port to Mata-
moras. Mexico. which were ultimately
destined for Confederate military uses
were subject to seizure.
This would appear to fit the seizures of
the Dutch and British merchantmen II
flour were clearly defined as contraband OF
war but this raises another question
which may have to be, and probably will
be- determined also.
The Supreme Court held in the Spring.
box eases that goods destined for an enemy
shipped to neutral port for transship-
ment to the enemy. TO evade a blockade.
were subject TO seizure. While no blockade
of South African ports has been declared
by Great Britain. such condition practi-
cally exists with respect to the Portuguese
port OF Lourenco Marques. which is sur
rounded by British warships on the lookout
for vessels conveying goods that would be
of assistance to the Beers.
These two cases more nearly apply to
the seizures of the British and Dutch ships
that carried cargOes of American -four than
any others yet discovered.
While they appear TO sustain to a con-
siderable extent the action of the comman-
der of the British warship. they are not
sufficiently analogous TO compel the Gov
crnment 10 acknowledge that the seizures
were legal. IL is pointed out that the con-
cern of the United States is not whether
the seizure and the detention of the carry
ing ships was contrary TO international law
and usage for none OF the vessels con-
cerned carried the Stars and Stripes but
whether the seizure and detention of the |
cargo. the property of an American COM
pany, was right and proper.
The underlying question is whether the |!
-four was contraband of war. Some re- |
spectacle authorities on international law |
hold that what is or what is not contra !
band is primarily determined by the bellig- !
erent. There are some articles that are |
absolutely contraband according to all au- |
ntk, cla naln ling fn.t-
and most food stuffs are not included in !
either class.
Some authorities hold that articles. no !
matter OF what character or nature. des- !
tined for the military uses OF the enemy
are contraband. This apparently would in
clude -four intended for the use of the Boer .
army. Whether the American -four In ques- /
tion was to be sent overland from Lourenco
MARQUES to Boer territory is naturally
about the first thing to be ascertained. but
as the burden of proof seemingly rests on
the British Government, which must justify I
its seizure On that ground il is expected
that the reasons for the action of the Brit
ish warship will be communicated to Am
bassador Choate in London or to Consul
Hollis in Lourenco Marques during the
course of the enquiry which they have been
instructed to make.
The State Department has not determiD-
ed what course it will pursue with ref
erence to the detention or confiscation of
the -four. search Of authorities is being
made. but the department will wait until
Mr. Choate or Mr.. Hollis, or probably both.
report
In the Spanish h-American war seizures
were made of neutral ships engaged in car
rying contraband goods supposedly iOr the /
use of the Spanish army in Cuba.
All these cases were passed on by the
prize courts. and the owners of the vessels
and the goods are entitled to an appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States. |
This course is apparently satisfactory to
the claimants. and is likely TO be followed
by recourse to British courts in the cases
of the two British ships. the Dutch ship.
and the cargo Of American flour. il the
British Government holds that the seizures
were legal OF course there will be dip
lomatic representations on the subject by
the United States and Great Britain. and
il is asserted that this Government intends
that the exchanges between Washington
and London shall result in definition Of
The principle touching the right of one neu-
tral nation to trade with another neutral
nation without interference from nation
at war.