The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-09-19
Contraband Between Neutral Ports?

a cargo is shipped from one neutral
port to another neutral port, say from
New York to Rotterdam, consisting of
articles OF legitimate commerce In time
Of peace: of legitimate commerce be-
! tween neutrals even ut a time when
other nations are fighting. but contra
band Of war il destined for one OF the
hclligerents. What is the status of
/ such goods on the high seasi
! No articles Of commerce are contra
band unless they are destined for a
belllgerent; but the main point with
regard to the foregoing question Is that
the destination OF the vessel Is not
necessarily the destination Of the goods
/ 1t carries
| This principle was clearly defined
| just one hundred years ago In the case
of the Swedish neutral vessel Com
mercen, seized by IN American priva-
/ teer as she was carrying TO the neutral
! port of Bilbao In Spain provisions in
| tended for the English army I'm that
country. Two years later the case came
before Mr.. Justice STORY, who rejected
utterly the argument that vessel could
not be considered as carrying contra
| band when ON her way to neutral
port. and he asserted that the hostile
destination of the goods was sufficient
to Justify the seizure.
The hostile destination may be
reached by land transportation beyond
the actual place Of landing. Again. It
| Is possible that articles appearing on
the manifest rs destined for neutral
port may really be intended for trans
! shipment to a belligerent at sea. or for
| subsequent conveyance to another port
not neutral. The liability VI such con-
| traband was clearly established during
our civil war in the case Of British
blockade runners to the Confederate
ports by way of Nassau. Seizures Of
contraband made before the carrier
had even reached Nassau, neutral
port. We're held TO he valid. and there
grew up. the doctrine of the "continu-
Gus voyage" "since vessels while sail
ing between two neutral ports could
only be considered 10 be carrying CON
| traband when the transport first from
one neutral port 10 another and after
ward from the latter 10 the enemy's
territory had been rega rled as one con.
tinuous voyage"
Authorities on international law and
Governments themselves have differed
| in their attitude toward the doctrine
OF continuous voyage. 1t Is fully ac-
| cepted for example. by the United
States and Great Britain. but was de.
MED and opposed by Germany during
the Boer war In 1900. when the Bund
esrath and two other German vessels
were seized by British cruisers between
neutral ports on suspicion of carrying
contra band Of an ultima tely hostile des
tination.
1t Is proper to note this difference
between the German attitude and that
Of America, England, France and some
other Powers.
On the principle that II is the desti-
nation of the goods and not of the YES
sci carrying them that makes them liza
| bic to seizure as contraband OF war,
even when taken to neutral ports, the
practice has necessarily followed Of ar.
rest and seizure on suspicion, of con-
veyance 10 some port for more thorough
search and determination by Il prize
court, a process involving Indemnity II
the vessel Is found 10 he innocent.
1t is obvious that the delay attending
this process may sometimes defeat the
purpose of an indirect shipment as
fully as contlscatlon itself. even though
proof IL not found 10 justify the SELF
urc and the goods are finally released.
But that is one of the chances Of war.