Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-01-12
RIGHT OF SEIZURE
Contraband Of War as Defined by In
ternational Law.
CONVERSATION OF AMERICAN FLOUR
The Distinctions Governed by
Necessities of Nations.
PROFESSOR IONS LECTURE

In his lecture on international law last
night to the students of the National Uni
, versty Law School DR.. Theodore P Ion
and. generally, the capture by the enemy of
| neutral property during war. He said that
| In time Of war tine subjects of neutral
| states have the right to trade freely with
| either of the belligerents by furnishing
| them with munitions OF war. provisions and
| other articles at their own risk and respon-
| sibflity. but that such neutral property may
be seized and confiscated If, according to
| circumstances, 1t is treated as contraband
| OF war The whole difficulty had always
| been. he said, to fix exactly what articles
| nave such character, and Grotius had the
| honor to first make distinction, as clear as
| possible, as to what constitutes contraband
| OF war. According to that authority, goods
may be divided between those which are
| useful for the purpose Of only, such
as munitions CT war; those which have not
| that character at all, such as articles of
| luxury. and those which might meet both
| purposes, such as money, provisions, ships,
| horses and articles of naval equipment, and
| the like.
adopt uniform rule as to the latter ar
| ticies, DR.. don said. In order to avoid con-
l nlcts the various powers entered into
| treaties in which they specified what ought
| TO De contraband of war and what not. In
| some treaties horses were treated as con-
| traband. while provisions were excluded
| IN 1853 England treated even grain as con-
traDano, france at the same time eXclud-
| ing provisions but declaring that horses had
that character. During the eighteenth CEN
| fury England entered into treaties with
| various powers. in which provisions were
excluded. In 1850 Russia issued decIara-
| ton of neutral rights. in which that power
| limited contraband only to munitions of
war and sulphur. Sweden and Denmark
l approved Russian 1aol a
| was called the first armed neutrality. In the
course OF the sane year Spain, France,
Holland. Prussia, Austria and the United
states became parties to that declaration.
Inc adhesion of Portugal and that of the
then existing kingdom of the two Siciles
followed, leaving England entirely isolated.
Position Taken by France.
Notwithstanding that agreement. France,
| in 1893, during her war with England,
treated provisions as contra band. The Brit
ish government was not less ardent by is
suing instructions to her naval command
ers to seize any provisions bound for the
French ports. The grounds of that meas
ure were said to be the fact of the general
consumption of the French people thus
treating as belligerent all the population of
the enemy Strong protests were made at
the time by the neutral states, and among
them, foremost of all, the United States of
America. In order to avoid further fric-
ton treaty was concluded in 1894 between
o.,
agreed that the word contraband should in
Guide not only arms and implements of
war. but also timber for shipbuilding tar
copper and generally. anything serving
for the equipment of vessels. AS for pro-
visions, it was stipulated that such articles
when considered as contraband according
to the existing law of nations and seiz-
ed, should not be confiscated but retained
on condition of an decentralization PAYABLE
to the owners That treaty expired after
some time, leaving the question as before,
causing constant friction when such ques-
lions as the actual seizure of flour arose in
time of war.
The Matamoras Case.
Prof. Ion cited an important decision of
| the Sup,eme Court of the United States,
| given in a case tried during the civil war.
| That case referred to the seizure of goods
| on an English vessel and bound for the
Mexican port of Matamoras. The court, in
defining contraband, adopted the classifi-
| cation of GrotiuS, quoted above, and held
| that articles which may be used for pur-
| poses OF war or peace are contraband when
| actually destined for the military naval
| use of either of the beligerents; that con-
| traband merchandise was subject to diff
| ferent rule in respect to Interior destina-
| ton than that which applies to merchan-
| disc not contra band: that the conveyance
| by neutrals to beligerents of contraband
articles is always unlawful, and that such
| articles may be seized during transit by
| sea. H ance, said the court, whilst articles
| not contraband might be sent to Mata-
moras and beyond to the belligerent region.
where the communications were not inter-
| rupted by blockade articles of contra
| band character destined in fact to the bel
| ligerent state or its military forces. were
liable to capture. though primarily destined
to Matamoras "a neutral porO.
| The Contrary View.
| At the same time contrary decision was
| given by an English court which had tried
| e;,,,tI, To hat nie;r
| contraband goods belonging to neutras are
| not liable to seizure unless in the actual
! process of voyage to enemy's port.
| Prof. Ion said the recent seizure of the
| American flour should be considered on two
| points. First comes the question whether
flour Is or is not contraband. Second, as
| Stunning it to be SO, whether that article.
| held as contraband, is liable to seizure
| while on its way, not to enemy, but to
a neutral port. such as that of Delagoa
| bay. AS regards the first question, the
| seized flour MY be considered as contra
| band If there is strong evidence that
| 1t was actually on its way to the Boer
| army. To deprive army of the enemy
| of provisions is as important to deprive
| 1t of munitions of war: that this principle
| Is absolute as far as land operations are
| concerned. and that there is no reason why
| it should be otherwise when the enemy gets
| its provisions by sea. In such cases, he
said. mere presumption is not sufficient.
| Unless 1t is clearly proved that the flour
| was " NC uSeu Soiely LOT the SOer army,
| and not Unfortunately for the population
| also, England ought to give the benefit of
| doubt for the freedom of trade.
| AS to thu Sc cond point. whether the seiz-
| ure is lawful when the flour is being trans
| ported from one neutral port TO another, as
| In the present case, if we follow the decis-
| lon Of the Supreme Court in the case of
| Matamoras the answer is in the affirma-
| tive; If that of the English court, above
quoted the answer is in the negative, Com
sequently. according to the English decis-
| ion, the action of the British admiral was
! unlawful When, in 1885. France during
| the hosdlities with China, declared rice
| destined for any port north of Canton to be
| eontraband of war on account of the inn
| portance Of the rice in the feeding of the
| population. as well as the Chinese army"
| England rightly protested against this view
| of the republic, of not making a distinction
| between the population and the army Lord
| Granville declared that Great Britain would
| not be considered bound by the decisions
| of the French prize courts.
| Laws Not Observed.
Prof. Ion further observed that the
powers, unfortunately. in such cases, act.
1