Omaha daily bee., 1900-01-13

THE BRITISH ANSWER
Ambassador Choate has Informed the
State department that the British
answer To the representations of this
government in regard to the seizure of
American merchandise is highly salts
factory. He says that the position Il
the British government is that food
stuffs in transit TO a hostile destination
can be regarded as c%ontraband of war
only when they are supplies for the
encmy'S forces. at is not sufficient that
they are capable of being used for the
benefit of the enemy; it must be shown
that they are so in fact through their
destination at the time Of the seizure
That is to say, there must be indubita-
bic evidence that they are intended for
the enemy.
In this the British government is con-
sistent with the position it assumed fif-
teen years ago when, during the
Tonquin war between France and China,
it protested against the decision of the
French government to treat shipments
of rice for Chinese ports north of Can
ton as contraband of war. The French
| government alleged, as n special
circumstance justifying its action, the
importance of rice in the feeding of he
Chinese population as well as of the
Chinese armies, thus implicitly claiming
that articles Of food might be treated as
contraband in order to put stress upon
the non-combatant population. In the
British protest Lord Granville notified
the French government that Great
Britain would not consider herself bound
by the decision of any prize court that
should give effect to this doctrine. He
said that her majesty's government
could not admit that consistently with
the law and practice of nations and with
the rights of neutrals provisions in gen
eral can be treated as c~ontraband of
war. They might acquire that character
under particular circumstances, as, for
instance, if they should be consigned
direct to the feet of n belligerent, or to
a port where such fleet may be lying,
and facts should exist raising the pre-
sumption that they were about to be
employed in %victualling the feet of the
enemy. In such a case the belligerent
would be entitled to seize the provisions
as contraband of war, on the ground
that they would enable warlike prepara-
tons to be carried IN. SIN the view of
her majesty's government" said Gran
vile, "the test appears to be whether
there are circumstances relative to any
particular cargo, or its destination, to
displace the presumption that articles of
this kind are intended for the ordinary
use of life and to show, prima facie, at
all events, that they are destined for
military use" If this principle had
been observed in the present instance
there would have been no seizures, for
the test required by the British govern
ment fifteen years ago would have failed
to show that the American -four was
destined for military use.
1t Is stated that the British answer Is
satisfactory to the State department as
far as it goes, but it does not decide
broadly whether or not foodstuffs are
to be regarded as contraband. Of course
the British government n reason
ably be expected to go beyond the i'm
mediate question and perhaps its defini-
ton of the circumstances under which
provisions may be considered cont. ablnd
should be regarded as sufficient. Our
own government has held that provisions
are contraband when destined for an
pnpmV'S shin or him or for n p1nca that
is besieged and this is practically the
British position. If that Is strictly
adhered to there will be no danger to
American trade with Delag II bay.