The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-24
COTTON AS CONTRABAND.
Great Britain Has Protested Many
Times Against So Treating IL.

nificance only in its relation to mari.
time a Loosely and colloquially
"contraband" contra, against" and
bannum. Low Latin for 'proclama-
tion'D may designate anything against
law or under n ban" The WORD
"contraband' has. indeed, been mex
actly used in controversies involving
the seizure Of enemy property, once
In connection with cotton and again
in a case of the capture of slaves.
Both of these instances arose dur
ing the American civil war. In the
latter three negroes, who had been
employed In the construction OF a
battery by Colonel Mallory, COM
mander Of the Virginia troops, were
taken TO Fortress Monroe, commanded
by General Il. +. Butler. Colonel
Mallory sought to recover posses
sion of the slaves through an inter-
mediary, Butler. however, insisting
upon his right to hold them as CON
traband of war" Later on, and In
Buffers autobiography. published in
1892, the author apologies for his in
accurate use OF the phrase. The
truth is" wrote General Butler, las
a lawyer l Vas never proud OF 1t, but
as an executive officer 1 was very
much comforted with 1t as a means of
doing my duty!" Cutters book,
pages 256-269)
The former and better known ease
involving the capture OF cotton oc-
CURED in the course Of correspondence
between Secretary OF State Bayard
In 1885 and MIR. Muruaga, Spanish
Minister, the latter interceding in be-
half Of the claimants of the cotton
which had been seized on Confeder-
ate territory during the civil war.
The Confederate Government requi-
sitioned all cotton. using II as rs chief
resource for the purchase of arms
and ammunition.
Adverting TO the circumstances Mr..
Bayard asserted that there was no
doubt that cotton might lawfully be
seized as "contraband OF war" Mr..
Muruaga was prompt to point out that
raw cotton was not contraband in It's
nature; was not so regarded by
civilized nations and was not so
treated by the United States during
the civil war. Mr.. Bayard. writing
some weeks later. unreservedly con-
coded the point, disclaiminG any pur-
pose 10 sustain the capture upon the
doctrine OF contrahand.
Strange 20 say both Hall and whar-
ton HAL, Internal. Law, 9Th Ed, 664;
WhartonS Internal. Law Dig, Ill,
43S), inadvertently overlooking both
the disclaimer by Mr.. Bayard and the
Inherent inapplicab!lity of the re-
pudiated Technology to the facts.
treat the incident as an occasion on
which the United States has regarded
cotton as contraband Of war. Though
the error is set forth and explained
with dlagrammatic lucidity in Profess
sor Moore's Digest of International
Law (Nol. VII, page 693). published
nearly ten years ago. II yet persists
with the authority and strength of
gospel in the minds OF some Of our
newspaper editors and publicists,
either too indolent TO examine the
records or whose patriotic SENSIBLE
ties have been cajoled into a condi-
ton Of unres!sting and unquestion-
ing concurrence upon any proposal
deemed favorable to our friends the
Allies cause.
Russia, also, let 1t he noted, when at
war with Japan added raw cotton to
It's list of contraband upon the ground
that raw cotton was used In the
manufacture Of explosives. II is in
teresting now to recall that this
evoked a prompt and vigorous pro-
test from Lord Lansdownc. then Brit
ish Secretary of State for Foreign A.
fairs. British India being the largest
importer of raw cotton into Japan.
The language used in the note To
Count Lamsdorf. Russian Minister of
Foreign Affairs, is. certain not to be
overlooked 10y our President in the
curse of the present controversy with
Great Britain.
The quantity Of raw cotton that
might be utilized for explosives wrote
Lord I~.ansdowne under date Of Oc-
toher ., 1904. would be iunnitcsimal
IN comparison with the bulk Of cot
ton exported from India To japan for
peaceful purposes, and to treat harm
less argos OF this latter description
as Internationally c~ontraband would
be to subject a branch OF innocent
commerce, which is especially i'm
rortant In the Far East. 30 a most
unwarrantable Interference"
An earlier and still more pointed
protest was addressed TO the Russian
Foreign Office by Secretary of State
John Hay under date OF April 30,
1904. i'm the course 81 which II was
said: Articles which like coal, cotton |
and provisions, though OF ordinarily
innocent nature are capable OF war
like use, are not subject to capture
and co~nfscation unless shown by evil
dence to be actually destined for the
military or naval forces OF a bell
l%iGerent,"
Space limitations forbid "A more ex-
tended quotation from his interest
ing and significant correspondence.
But. as.de from afrording clear and
convincing statements OF our own po-
sltion n hat Of Great Britain at
that time, II Is also evidence that none
Of the corresponding Powers consid-
cred the issue at all affected by the
alleged civil war precedent, Of which
So much is made at present by som
Our cOuntrymen.
We may come now To the Declara-
ton of London of l90S-09. held at the
invitation OF Great Britain for the
purpose of determining what
were I generally recognized rules
OF international law" in respect of