The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-12-16
THE RIGHTS or NEUTRALITY
Judge Cicarw alter on the Right to Sci
COntraband OF war.


Lord Kitchener be right in his conclu-
sion that the European war will last
shree years. 1t is Of the utmost impor-
lance that the producers and manufac-
turers of this country at once should
know whether the President acts legally,
not 10 say wisely. in using his immense
personal and official influence to inter-
dict the making Of loans and the max
ing and selling OF articles of commerce
and munitions of war TO a bell gerent
Power
have read with great interest the
compressed and lucid letter Of my friend
Professor Woolsey of Yale.
1t was contended on the part OF
France, in 1896. that neutral Govern
ments were bound to restrain their sub
Jects from selling or exporting articles
contraband Of war to the belLgerent
Powers, but 1t was successfully shown
and maintained on the part OF the
United States that neutrals may law
fully sell, at home, to a belllgerent pur-
chaser or carry, themselves, to the
belligerent Powers. contraba | tcles.
subject TO the right of seizure in
transit tSee ". Adet's letter TO Mr..
Pickering. March II, 1896; Mr., Picker
May IS. 1896, and the circul letter OF
the Secretary Of the wy to the Col
lectors, August 4. 1881
This right was explicitly declared and
upheld by the Supreme Court OF the
United States in the celebra ed case of
the Santissima Trinidad an the San
lander. argued in 1922 by Mr.. Winder,
Mr.. Tazewell, Daniel ebster and Mr.
d, L. Ogden. Chief Justice Marshall pre-
siding. Mr.. Justice Story, delivering
the unanimous opinion of the court,
held:
|. No neutral state l. bound by any
canon of international law to prohibit
the expectation of contraband articles,
and the United States have not pro-
hibted IT,
g The sending of contra banC Of war
from neutral country To the belliger-
cnt port for sale as .....~.es Of COM
,nerce is unlawful only as IL subjects
6v hc other bCiligorcnt
In the almost equally famous case Of
Richardson against the Maine Fire and
Marine Insurance Company, argued in
the Supreme Judicial Court Of the Com
monwealth If Massachusetts, in Novem.
her, 1909, 10y Mr.. Prescott, Mr.. Jackson,
Mr.. Dexter and Mr.. Otis. Chief Justice
tf...
nous opinion said: we do not know
Of any rule established by the law of
nations holding that the neutral shipper
of goods contraband of war is an Of
fender against his own sovereign, and
liable TO be punished by the munic pal
laws Of his own county A
net rdl merchant is not obliged to re-
gar. the state Of i0or bettCcc other
nations
There is M recorded case where the
neutral merchant has been punished by
his own country for his contraband
shipments II he adventures upon con-
traband trade and his goods are seized
and condemnc" as prizt, to this pen
atty he must of course submit, for his
country VIII not interfere, because the
capture of contraband consigned to a
beliieerent is lawful; but there is no
canon of the law of nations which pre-
vents the manufacture in neutral
country and the shipment from a neu-
tral port of goods consigned to and de-
signed for the use Of belligerent.
The acqulescences OF Mr.. Morgan and
Mr.. Schwab in the views OF the Presi-
dent were acts Of grace, verify of gra-
Ciousness, and doubtless both gentlemen
were animated by reasons satisfactory
TO themselves. The question. however.
is bound repeatedly To reCur, and il may
be well to determine at the outset
whether the President ac ) wisely in in
terposng an unauthorized veto lnhibt-
ing citizens OF the United States from
doing an authorized act.
A. ] CLEARWATER
KINGSTON, Decemb,r IA.