The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-09-26
COAL AND IRON CoNTRABANDs
Russia Once Declared That she Would
Never Assent 70 That Doctrine 40 to Coal.

| Russia Once Declared That She Would
Never Assent TO That Doctrine 10 to Coal.
| To THE EpITon OF TEE sUH-Sir: 1t seems
| that while the Russian Government. In an
swer to the very able and energetic protee
Of Secretary Hay. has at last recognised the
doctrine that provisions shipped to private
individuals In belligerent ports cannot be
| considered contraband unless there Is sum-
Client evidence to prove that they are Intended
| for the military or naval use Of the enemy.
that Government still insists that coal and
| iron are to be treated as oontraband and
| therefore subject to conhScation
This proposition Ia rs absolutely untenable'
as the one In reference to provisions. which
has been abandoned There IL but one test
| by which the character OF shipment can be
| determined as contraband or non-cOnuaband,
and that Ia the purpose for which II was
shipped. Where an article IL evidently intended
| for military use. as arms and ammunition.
the belli gerent has perfect right to say that
| II shall not be furnished to his enemy and to
| declare IL contraband. When an article Is
not ordinarily used for military purposes
but for consumption by peaceable residents
Of a hostile country, 1t ia presumably not
contraband, and oan be so considered only
when there IL convincing proof that 1t IS
intended for the use OF the army or navy OF
the enemy.
This distinction was clearly drawn by the
Supr eme Court Of the United States in tho
case of the Peterhof This vessel was
captured by the United States fleet while'
1t was bound for Matamoras. Mexican
port on the Rio Grande. The cargo con-
sisted partly OF arms and ammunition, and
partly of provisions which were. as shown by
the evidence. intended to be sent across the
Rio Grande into the Southern Confederacy
for sale to its civil inhabitants. The Court
held that the arms and ammunition being
evidently intended for military use were con- ,
traband. but that the provisions were inno- (,
cent merchandise and as such should be re-
leased.
SO when France in 1885 declared rice shipped
to Chinese ports north Of Canton to be con-
traband the British Government controverted
the proposition, and Lord Granville wrote
the French Ambassador as follows
In the view Of her Majestys Government the test
appears 70 be whether there are circumstances
relative to any particular cargo or is destination
t. dPsGe hs mp ha, a ase Of E
10 show pma soe events that they are des
tined for military use.
The same reasoning applies to coal and
iron, These articles are largely and a, ps,n1
the everyday life Of all eivillzed commani-
ties for manufacturing. for transportation
Prof. Hall id, the recent edition useD Of
his very valuable work on international law
says
number of Innocent purposes, the whole daily lie
making King gas for diving locomotive and Tor the
conduct Of the most ordinary Industries, that no
IS orered BY the Simple fact Of its destination 70
beiligerent port But on the other hand, u Is in the
purposes: and when i. destination for such pur
poses can be shown 70 be extremely probable, y
to a naval Station such a. Bermuda. or % a place
Isa as e % . 9sss OF s or
1t which would not apply TO gunpowder.
This is certainly fair statement Of the
argument. 1t amounts simply to Question
coal is prima facie an innocent article Of mer-
chandise. but II the facts proven before tbs
poses and to establish, its destination fo{
tb ey 81 dsya sn r o Hn
The decision Of the huss an, G0yJsfI Ia
band, and as such subject to seizure and con-
flscation.
ta.e st GSt0e rs al: @ Of
edents on the subject Of oontraband, but a.
% Il IN 10 &c
made IL 49, r. the wss A s
all the leading European Powers and the
At that conference Russia gave formal
notice to the world that she would not under
any circumstances or at any time consent
war. quote the words Of Count Kapnist,
her Minister Plenlpotenlary In that confer
ence.
am obliged now TO recur to question which
was raised In the commission In my absence and
without my being able to discover from the report
precisely what was done on II. mean the English
proposal by which coal would be classed amongst
the articles considered by International law a. con-
Without the least wishing to raise a debate on
this subject now. l must, In conformity with my
Inst ructions, declare that the Russian Government
would never accept such an Interpretation. On
this point my instructions are peremptory. The
here would categortcaly refuse Its consent 70 any
% S1s,s n w saS Imply reeosnon q coal
as contrabAnd of war.
After such declaration as this. made 70
the representatives Of the worlds great Pow>
ers with what grace can the Russian GovernS
ment now declare that coal is absolutely con$
traband of war? Can II expect other nation4
to remain passive while the CzaY makes and
unmakes International law to suit his oonven-
fence? Is it not time that the neutral Powers
should take more decisive steps than they
have hitherto done to conserve their rights
and protect their oommercef Does not their
duty to their own subjects require that they
should take some measures more emphatic
than verbal protests against such outrageous
aggressions a. have been committed and are
still being committed by Ruasian cruisers
upon neutral commerce? j. 8. TUCKER.
WASHINGTON. Sept. "a.