New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-07-26
COTTON NEVER
UASSED BY U. 5.
As CONTRABAND
Seized by Government
During Civil War as
Enemy supplies"
BAYARD so SAID
TO SPANS ENVOY
Letter Of Secretary of State in
1886 Cited as Showing Amer
lean Attitude.
Iron III, Tribune Bureau ]


Iron The Tribune Bureau
Washington, July 25.-The United
States did not declare cotton contra
band during the Civil War. An EN-
phatic statement TO this effect was
made by an official of the State De
partment to-day in discussing the agi-
tation in England for placing the staple
on the contraband list.
This official pointed 70 a note writ
ten by Thomas I. Bayard TO Mr.. de
Muruaga. the Spanish Minister here. in
1856, in which the reasons for the seiz-
ure OF all cotton by the Union army
and navy were clearly defined. the
most important Of which was that cot
ton was practically used as money by
the Confederacy. in that II was paid
for in arms and ammunition by the
countries 10 which il was sent.
Mr. Bayard's note was in reply TO
the Spanish Minister'S request for pay
ment for cotton, valued at approx
mately 100000. and owned by Span
ish subjects, which had been seized by
the Union forces. In part, it was as
follows:
"The case appears to be simple
one Of a private contract for com
mcrciai profit and mutual advantage
between the claimants and the South
ern Confederacy, which, at the time
he bargain was made, was a recog-
nized belligerent and was considered
by the claimants a responsible con-
tracing party. Il was also at that
time perfectly well known to the claim
ants that the Confederate government,
with which they made this voluntary
4aAo ~
rebellion and war against the govern
ment Of the United States. The claim
ants also knew that the commodity
contracted for was at that time being
made use Of by the Confederacy IN
carrying out the war, both by accumu-
lsting il IN large quantities for sale,
when il could be passed through the
lines, and by destroying II when in
danger Of being seized by the United
States troops. in this way aiding cot
ton famine in foreign countries, so as
10 stimulate and secure recognition OF
the Confederacy as a separate member
Of the family Of nations.
Classed as War Supply.
Cotton was useful as collateral Sc
curity for loans negotiated abroad by
the Confederate States government, or,
as in the present case, was sold by II
for cash to meet current expenses, or
to purchase arms and munitions or
war. Its use for such purposes was
publicly proclaimed by the Confederacy
and its sale interdicted except under
regulations established by, or contract
with, the Confederate government.
Cotton was thus officially classed among
war supplies. and, as such, was liable
10 be destroyed when found by the Fed
eral troops or turned TO any use which
the exigencies Of war might dictate.
"The military importance Of cotton
to the Confederacy is shown by the fact
that as early as February, 1861, an act
passed by the provisional government
Of the Confederate States ito raise
money for the support Of the govern
ment and to provide for the defence Of
the Confederate States Of America
levied a duty on all cotton in the raw
state exported from the Confederate
States; and in May OF the same year
an act was passed prohibiting the ex-
port Of cotton from the Confederate
States except through the ports of said
states.
an the same year l1864) in which the
claimants made their contract the Con
federate War Department officially
lNNOSI NOAAO4- a. btih6 DAl' Va AA4N
chief munitions Of war by advising that
large amounts Of Confederate bonds
should be issued for the separate use
of that department in purchasing cot
ton and steamers with which 10 obtain
military supplies from abroad.
Cotton, in fact, was TO the Confed-
eracy as much munitions Of war as
powder and ball, for it furnished the
chief means of obtaining those indis-
pensables Of warfare. In international
law there could be no question as TO
the right of the Federal commanders
to seize IL as contraband of war,
whether they found it on rebel terri
tory or intercepted il on the way to
the parties who were TO furnish in re-
turn material aid IN the form Of the
slnews Of war-arms or general sup
plies.
Aliens not Favored.
"The fact that the claimants were
aliens, living in another country, and
acting only through agents in the Con-
federate States, does not alter the case
or entitle them 10 damage for seizures
by the United States. This argument
in analogous cases has been frequently
used by Spain toward American claim
ants, alien ownership not being in the
spanish QolIlNlbUN, or III any Olutt
part of the civilized world, a ground on
which cOntscatIon of contraband of
war could be avoided.
The argument of the claimants
that hostilities had ceased when the /
seizure took place is not valid. as the F.
war between the Confederacy and the /
United States was fragrant at the time F..
the contract was made by the claim /
ants with the Confederate States. The /.
war, under the decision the Su-
preme Court Of the United States. did /.
not4terminate until the goth of August, I
1866
This department. in its instructions /
TO our Ministers at those courts when /.
recognized the Southern insurgents as .
hsil igerents, has maintained that .
those nations, after such recognition, /
must be content to have their subjects /
who were domiciled as merchants in .
belljgerent territory considered as bel
lige rents, and the same argument /
would embrace all aliens residing IN
the enemys country for business pur-
poses or represented by agents there.
at has likewise been held by the
Supreme Court Of the United States
in one case where the property Of