New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-07-26

non-combatant was destroyed. that
property left by its owner in the coun-
try Of a belligerent is subject to the
chances of war and TO conilscation by
the other belligerent
"A similar rule was enforced in the
case Of the losses Of British subjects
through the Dutch bombardment OF
Antwerp in 1880, and was assented to
by Great Britain and all the other
Powers whose citizens suffered loss.
The same was the case with the prop
ertv of American citizens in Naples in
1907, and likewise in the case OF losses
incurred by foreigners by our bonn
bardment Of Greytown in 1858, France
and Great Britain acquiescing.
Corrected "COntraband' Phrase.
While Mr.. Bayard used the phrase
"contraband of war" he corrected It IN
a subsequent communication. In dis
cussing this reference John Bassett
Moore says:
THE question at issue IVES the right
fulness OF the alleged seizure on land,
BY military forces Of the united
States. of a quantity of cotton 70
which the claimants asserted utle
under a contract with the Confederate
Government. which then controlled the
supply Of cotton and used 1t as It's
chief resource for the purchase OF
arms and ammunitions and the pay
ment Of current expenses. Under these
circumstances il was held by the Amer
lean courts. as we'll as by the military
authorities, that cotton within the
Confederate territory and control was
a legitimate subject of capture.
I'm referring to this fact, Mr.. Bay
ard in his note to Mr.. Muruaga OF
June % 1886. said that there was no
doubt that cotton might, under the
cjrcum stances described, be seized as
'contraband of war using the term
perhaps unadvisedly, and, at any rate
IN an untechnical sense, just as 1t was
applied by General Butler TO captured
slaves. Mr. Bayard's use Of the term,
however. gave to Mr.. Muruaga an OPP
portunity TO point out, as he dld IN
note of August -, 1886, That the
United States did not during the ClVli
War treat cotton as contraband OF
war, and that the acceptance OF such
a proposition would imply an extern
sion of the recognized lists Of contra
band articles. Mr.. Bayard, replying
on December 3, 1886, said:
"You mistake the position OF the
United States when you suppose that
it is proposed by us formally to in
sert cotton on the list of articles con-
traband of war. The seizure by the
of the United States in
1865 is not TO be narrowed to Ques-
ton of contraband. The distinctions
as TO contraband have grown up from
seizures of neutral vessels at sea,
when the presumption arising from
the ordinary inviolability Of neutral
vessel has 70 be overcome before the
seizure can be sustained. Here the
seizure was not on board a neutral
vessel. or on neutral territory invaded
on ground Of necessity. but on soil
over which the United States had
rights of sovereignty, not merely by
constitutional title. but by the law
Of nations and by the law of war.
ut is not needful, nor do |, there
fore, say whether cotton purchased in
the Confederacy during the war would
be liable to seizure as contraband II
found on a neutral ship. ! propose to
strictly cOnstrue belligerent rights on
the high seas; but the cotton which
is the subject of the present claim.
placed as it was by its owners. the
present claimants, under what YOU
state to be the "strict sur
veillance" of the Confederate authori-
ties, was. TO the eye of the United
States government when il sought to
reclaim the region where such cotton
was stored. as much the proper sub
ject Of belligerent seizure as would
have been park Of artillery"