Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1902-03-10

or articles cOnSldereu or ueenleu 10 ne
contraband of war according to the
law of modern usage Of nations, for
the use or service of either of the
said contending parties" AND all this
was to be upon pain Of the several
penalties by the said statute imposed
or denounced, and of our high displeas-
,ue."
1t is hard to say what Great Britain
would now agree is the modern usage
of nations" in this respect. But
judged by her own not remote prac-
tlce, we stand condemned in permit
ting the shipments in question. Dur
ing her long duel with Napoleon she
contended that even provisions bound
to n port of her enemy were contra
band, and she remorselessly seized
them ON the voyage in neutral bottoms,
and this on the ground that famine
was proper weapon Of warfare And
her confscations of such cargoes
ruined the carrying trade of New
England, and it never was recovered.
Woolsey, in his international Law,
sums up his discussion of the subject
by saying that in order to come with
in the admitted definition of contra
band, there must be certain kinds of
articles, such as afford direct assist
ance, not to the enemy, but to the
enemy's military operations, and
known beforehand, and hence imply
ing a departure from the spirit and
rules of neutrality The shipment
of horses from New Orleans of which
| the Beers complain are known to be
| of direct assistance to the enemy's
military operations and but for
which those military operations"
would long since have failed, disas-
trously to Great Britain, but with
thousands of lives saved and no ma
tion's honor prejudiced thereby.
But If our government is to judge
this question according to her own
standards, long ago and often set up
and adhered to, we are not left in
doubt as TO this question of what
makes up contraband of war
AS early as 1893, in our treaty with
Spain, 1t was provided that under
this name of contraband or prohibited
goods, shall be comprehended
horses with their furniture"
Even earlier than that, in 1888, in
our treaty with Sweden, it was agreed
that within the term contra band goods
should be included 80 horses
with their harness." In 1880, we made
treaty with Ecuador in which it was
stipulated that among contraband
| goods should be "3rd. Cavalry belts,
and horses with their furniture" In
1924, we negotiated a treaty with
Colombia, in which we agreed that
contraband of war should comprehend,
Thirdly. Cavalry belts, and horses
with their furniture" The same def-
milton of contraband was carried into
|
our treaty with Bolivia in 1858, with
the Dominican Republic in 1851, with
Hayti in 1864, with Salvador in 1870,
with Peru in 1887, and perhaps with
other powers. 1t will be said that
while we have thus considered horses
as contraband in our relations with
other powers, still either bellgerent
may dispatch them from our ports and
run the risk of the cargo being cap
tured by the other belligerent. But
this would be true of any goods on
an cncmy's ship, whether contraband
or innocent, and the enumeration of
| N''"t NphNN'tut'S NOullUIhuu WOulu
Impose no duty whatever upon neu-
trails. And Mr.. Hay, 1t Is understood,
puts his refusal to interfere upon the
one ground that the horses sent from
our ports are not contraband, and
that for that reason he Is charged with
no duty concerning them And 1t is
to meet this claim of his that we have
undertaken to show that, measured
by the definitions of text-wrters and
the standard of our own treaties.
horses are contrnband; and If this Is
40, then, according to the Queens
proclamation of 1861, we as neutrals
have no right in law or morals, TO
promote the traffic.
But there is yet more cogent
ground why, as against Great Britain
In particular, we are bound no longer
to permit the use of our ports for the
shipments of horses, the avowed destl.
nation of which is the armies of one
OF the belligerents, and the known
purpose Of which shipments is not
peaceful but warlIke. When. after
our Civil war, Great Britain was
called to account for her outrageous
| It..s