THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
Sir,—Enquiries which have reached me with reference to the observations which I recently addressed to you upon the British Proclamation of Neutrality induce me to think that some account of the development of the text of the proclamation now in use may be of interest to your readers. The proclamations with which I am acquainted conform to one or other of two main types, each of which has its history.
1. The earlier proclamations merely call attention to the English law against enlistments, &c., for foreign service; and command obedience to the law, upon pain of the penalties thereby inflicted, "and of his Majesty's high displeasure." In the proclamation of 1817, the tacit reference is doubtless to certain Acts of George II, which, having been passed for a very different purpose, and having proved inadequate in their new application, were repealed by the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819. This is the Act to which reference is made in the proclamations of 1823 and 1825; in the former of which we first get a recital of neutrality; while in the latter the clause enjoining all subjects strictly to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights first makes its appearance.[139]
2. The proclamation of 1859 is of a very different character, bearing traces of the influence of the ideas which had inspired the action of President Washington in 1793. While carrying on the old, it presents several new features. British subjects are enjoined to abstain from violating, not only "the laws and statutes of the realm," but also (for the first time) "the law of nations." They are also (for the first time) warned that, if any of them "shall presume, in contempt of this our Royal Proclamation, and of our high displeasure, to do any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Sovereign, ... or in violation of the law of nations, ... as, more especially," by breach of blockade, or carriage of contraband, &c., they will "rightfully incur, and be justly liable to, hostile capture, and to the penalties denounced by the law of nations in that behalf"; and notice is (for the first time) given that those "who may misconduct themselves in the premises will do so at their peril, and of their own wrong; and that they will in no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture, or such penalties as aforesaid, but will, on the contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct."
The proclamations of 1861 and February and March 1866 complicate matters, by making the warning clause as to blockade and contraband apply also to the statutory offences of enlistment, &c.; but the proclamation of June, 1866, gets rid of this complication by returning to the formula of 1859, which has been also followed in 1870, 1877, 1898, and in the present year.
The formula as it now stands, after the process of growth already described, may be said to consist of seven parts—viz. (1) a recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention of the laws of the realm or the law of nations in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, "and of Our [140]high displeasure"; (5) a warning to observe the duties of neutrality, and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights; (6) a further warning to those who, in contempt of the proclamation "and of Our high displeasure," may do any acts "in derogation of neutral duty, or in violation of the law of nations," especially by breach of blockade, carriage of contraband, &c., that they will be liable to capture "and to the penalties denounced by the law of nations"; (7) a notification that persons so misconducting themselves "will in no wise obtain any protection from Us," but will, "on the contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct."
The question which I have ventured to raise is whether the textus receptus, built up, as it has been, by successive accretions, is sufficiently in accordance with the facts to which it purports to call the attention of British subjects to be properly submitted to His Majesty for signature. I would suggest for consideration: 1. Whether the phrases commanding obedience, on pain of His Majesty's "high displeasure," and the term "misconduct," should not be used only with reference to offences recognised as such by the law of England. 2. Whether such condensed, and therefore incorrect, though very commonly employed, expressions as imply that breach of blockade and carriage of contraband are "in violation of the law of nations," and are liable to "the penalties denounced by the law of nations," should not be replaced by expressions more scientifically correct. The law of nations neither prohibits the acts in question nor prescribes penalties to be incurred by the doers of them. What it really does is to define the measures to which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without laying himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the traders implicated owe allegiance.
THE BRITISH PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
Sir,—I am glad that Mr. Gibson Bowles has called attention to certain respects in which the Proclamation of Neutrality issued by our Government on the 3rd of the present month differs from that issued on February 11, 1904.
In two letters addressed to you with reference to the Proclamation of that year, I ventured to point out what appeared to me to be its defects, alike from a scientific and from a practical point of view. The present Proclamation has slightly minimised these defects, but, as a whole, remains open to the objections which I then raised. I have no wish to repeat in detail the contents of my letters of 1904, especially as they may be now found in my Letters upon War and Neutrality, published in 1909, pp. 95 and 98, but am unwilling not to take this opportunity once more to urge the desirability of redrafting the document in question.
The Proclamation just issued still answers to my description of that of 1904, as consisting of seven parts—viz.: (1) A recital of neutrality; (2) a command to subjects to observe a strict neutrality, and to abstain from contravention of the laws of the realm or the Law of Nations in relation thereto; (3) a recital of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870; (4) a command that the statute be obeyed, upon pain of the penalties thereby imposed, and of "Our high displeasure"; (5) a warning to observe the duties of neutrality and to respect the exercise of belligerent rights; (6) a further warning that any persons presuming, in contempt of the Proclamation, to do acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power, or of the Law of Nations, will incur the penalties denounced by such law; (7) a notice that persons so misconducting themselves will obtain no protection from their Sovereign.
With the phraseology of No. 1, reciting British neutrality, and Nos. 2-5, dealing with the duties of British subjects under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870, and constituting [142]the bulk of the Proclamation, little serious fault can be found. It is well that such persons should be warned of the penalties which they may incur, including the Royal displeasure.
The remaining two clauses relate, however, to matters of a totally different character from those previously mentioned, and care should therefore have been taken, but has not been taken, to make this perfectly clear. I would further remark upon these clauses: (1) That I agree with Mr. Bowles in regretting the omission here of the specific mention made in 1904 of "breach of blockade," "carriage of contraband," &c., as specimens of the acts undoubtedly contemplated in these two clauses; (2) that it is a mistake to describe acts of this kind as being in derogation of "the duty of subjects of a neutral Power," or "in violation of the Law of Nations," or as "liable to the penalties denounced by such law." Carriage of contraband, and acts of the same class, are notoriously not condemned by English law, neither are they, in any proper sense, breaches of the Law of Nations, which, speaking scientifically, never deals with individuals, as such, but only with the rights and duties of States inter se. What the Law of Nations really does is, as I said in 1904, "to define the measures to which a belligerent may resort for the suppression of such acts, without laying himself open to remonstrance from the neutral Government to which the traders implicated owe allegiance"; (3) that on the other hand, I am glad to find that, in accordance with my suggestion, while it continues very properly to be stated that persons doing the acts under discussion "will in no wise obtain any protection from Us against such capture, &c.," the further statement that such persons "will, on the contrary, incur Our high displeasure by such misconduct," has now been with equal propriety omitted.
THE PROCLAMATION OF NEUTRALITY
Sir,—May I be allowed to point out that two questions arise upon the recent British Proclamation of Neutrality which were not, as they should have been, in the House of Commons last night, kept entirely distinct?
The Government has surely done right in now omitting, as I suggested in 1904, with reference to certain classes of acts which are prohibited neither by English nor by International Law, a phrase announcing that the doers of them would incur the King's "high displeasure"; while retaining the warning that doers of such acts must be prepared for consequences from which their own Government will not attempt to shield them.
On the other hand, our Government has surely erred in not specifying, as in previous Proclamations, the sort of acts to which this warning relates—viz., to acts such as carriage of contraband, enemy service, and breach of blockade, which differ wholly in character from those violations of the Foreign Enlistment Act against which the bulk of the Proclamation is directed. As the Proclamation now stands, no clear transition is marked between breaches of English law and the unspecified acts which, though perfectly legal, will forfeit for the doers of them any claim to British protection from the consequences involved. Traders are left to find out as best they may the meaning of the general words "any acts in derogation of their duty as subjects of a neutral Power."
SECTION 4
Neutral Hospitality
The Hague Convention of 1907, No. xiii., not yet ratified by Great Britain, suggests in Art. 12, with reference to the question here raised, [144]that "à défaut d'autres dispositions spéciales de la législation de la Puissance neutre, il est interdit aux navires de guerre des belligérants de demeurer dans les ports et rades ou dans les eaux territoriales de la dite Puissance pendant plus de 24 heures sauf dans les cas prévues par la présente Convention."
BELLIGERENT FLEETS IN NEUTRAL WATERS
Sir,—A novel question as to belligerent responsibilities would be suggested for solution if, as seems to be reported in Paris, Admiral Rozhdestvensky over-stayed his welcome in the waters of Madagascar, although ordered to leave them by his own Government in compliance with "pressing representations" on the part of the Government of France.
A much larger question is, however, involved in the discussion which has arisen as to the alleged neglect by France to prevent the use of her Cochin-Chinese waters by the Russians as a base of operations against Japan. We are as yet in the dark as to what is actually occurring in those waters, and are, perhaps, for that very reason in a better position for endeavouring to ascertain what are the obligations imposed on a neutral in such a case by international law.
It is admitted on all hands that a neutral Power is bound not to permit the "asylum" which she may grant to ships of war to be so abused as to render her waters a "base of operations" for the belligerent to which those ships belong. Beyond this, international law speaks at present with an uncertain voice, leaving to each Power to resort to such measures in detail as may be necessary to ensure the due performance of a duty which, as expressed in general terms, is universally recognised.
The rule enforced since 1862 by Great Britain for this purpose limits the stay of a belligerent warship, under ordinary circumstances, to a period of twenty-four hours; and the same provision will be found in the neutrality proclamations issued last year by, e.g. the United States, Egypt, China, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. So by[145] Japan and Russia in 1898. This rule, convenient and reasonable as it is, is not yet a rule of international law; as Lord Percy has had occasion to point out, in replying to a question addressed to him in the House of Commons. The proclamations of most of the Continental Powers do not commit their respective Governments to any period of time, and the material clauses of the French circular, to which most attention will be directed at the present time, merely provide as follows:—
"(1) En aucun cas, un belligérant ne peut faire usage d'un port Français, ou appartenant à un État protégé, dans un but de guerre, &c. (2) La durée du séjour dans nos ports de belligérants, non accompagnés d'une prise, n'a été limitée par aucune disposition spéciale; mais pour être autorisés à y séjourner, ils sont tenus de se conformer aux conditions ordinaires de la neutralité, qui peuvent se résumer ainsi qu'il suit:—(a) ... (b) Les dits navires ne peuvent, à l'aide de ressources puisées à terre, augmenter leur matériel de guerre, renforcer leurs équipages, ni faire des enrôlements volontaires, même parmi leurs nationaux. (c) Ils doivent s'abstenir de toute enquête sur les forces, l'emplacement ou les ressources de leurs ennemis, ne pas appareiller brusquement pour poursuivre ceux qui leur seraient signalés; en un mot, s'abstenir de faire du lieu de leur résidence la base d'une opération quelconque contre l'ennemi. (3) Il ne peut être fourni à un belligérant que les vivres, denrées, et moyens de réparations nécessaires à la subsistence de son équipage ou à la sécurité de sa navigation."
Under the twenty-four hours rule, the duty of the neutral Government is clear. Under the French rules, all must evidently turn upon the wisdom and bonne volonté of the officials on the spot, and of the home Government, so far as it is in touch with them. We have no reason to suppose that the qualities in question will not characterise the conduct of the French at the present moment. There can, however, be no doubt that a better definition of the mode in which a neutral Power should prevent abusive use of the asylum afforded by its ports and waters is urgently required. The point is one which must prominently engage the attention of the special conference upon the rights and duties of neutrals, for which a wish was expressed by The[146] Hague Conference of 1899, and, more recently, by President Roosevelt.
Sir,—It is satisfactory to learn that the United States Neutrality Board has decided adversely to the contention that the Appam is a German ship of war. Her treatment as a prize would then, prima facie, seem to be governed by Art. 21 of The Hague Convention, No. xiii., which provides for her being released, together with her officers and crew, while the prize crew is to be interned. This Convention has been duly ratified both by Germany and by the United States. Its non-ratification by Great Britain is, I conceive, irrelevant.
But Germany contends that the situation is governed by Art. 19, the text of which has been several times set out in your columns, of the old Convention of 1799. This may startle those who are acquainted with what occurred at The Hague in 1907, and I have seen no reference to what must be the gist of the German argument on the point. They no doubt argue that the old Convention remains unrepealed by No. xiii. of The Hague, because the latter Convention is of no effect, in pursuance of its common form Art. 28, to the effect that:—"The provisions of the present Convention do not apply except between contracting Powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention" (which is by no means the case).
Certain reservations on ratification do not affect Arts. 21 or 22.
The State Department ruled that the case did not fall within the protecting clauses of the Treaty of 1799, which granted asylum only to ships of war accompanying prizes, whereas the Appam was herself [147]a prize. Proceedings by the owners in the local Federal Court for possession of the ship resulted in a decision in their favour, against which the Germans are appealing in the Supreme Court. They do not seem to have raised the objection, mentioned in the letter, as to the applicability of Convention viii.
SECTION 5
Carriage of Contraband. (Absolute and Conditional Contraband: Continuous Voyages: Unqualified Captors: The Declaration of London)
The letters included in the preceding sections 2 and 3 touched incidentally upon carriage of contraband, in relation to other departments of the law affecting neutrals. The eight letters which follow, suggested respectively by the Spanish-American, the Boer, and the Russo-Japanese wars, deal exclusively with this topic, which seems likely to be henceforth governed no longer only by customary and judge-made law, but largely also by written rules, such as those suggested by the unratified Declaration of London of 1909.
(Absolute and Conditional Contraband)
The divergence which has so long existed between Anglo-American and Continental views upon contraband was very noticeable at the commencement of the war of 1898, which gave occasion to the letter which immediately follows. While the Spanish Decree of April 23 set out only one list of contraband goods, the United States Instructions of June 20 recognised two lists—viz. of "absolute" and of "conditional" contraband, including under the latter head "coal when destined for a naval station, a port of call, or a ship or ships of the enemy; materials for the construction of railways or telegraphs, and money, when such materials or money are destined for an enemy's forces, provisions, when destined for an enemy's ship or ships, for a place besieged."
An answer was thus supplied to the question suggested in this letter, as to articles ancipitis usus.
Sir,—I fear that the mercantile community will hardly profit so much as the managers of the Atlas Steamship Company seem to expect by the information contained in their letter which you print this morning. It was, indeed, un[148]likely that the courteous reply of the Assistant Secretary of State at Washington to the enquiry addressed to him by the New York agents of the company would contain a declaration of the policy of the United States with reference to contraband of war. The threefold classification of "merchandise" (not of "contraband") quoted in the reply occurs, in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the well-known case of the Peterhoff (5 Wallace, 58), but it is substantially that of Grotius, and has long been accepted in this country and in the United States, while the Continent is, generally speaking, inclined to deny the existence of "contraband by accident," and to recognise only such a restricted list of contraband as was contained in the Spanish decree of April 24 last.
The questions upon which shippers are really desirous of information (which they are, however, perhaps not likely to obtain, otherwise than from decisions of prize Courts) are of a less elementary character. They would like to know what articles ancipitis usus ("used for purposes of war or peace according to circumstances") will be treated by the United States as contraband, and with what penalty the carriage of such articles will be visited—i.e. whether by confiscation or merely by pre-emption.
The four letters which next follow also relate to the two classes of contraband goods, with especial reference to the character attributed to foodstuffs, coal and cotton.
On foodstuffs, see the Report of the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food, &c., in Time of War, 1905. Cf. also infra., pp. 174, 176, 177. They were placed by the unratified Declaration of London, Art. 24, in the class of conditional contraband; as is also coal. By Art. 28 of the Declaration, raw cotton was enumerated among the articles which cannot be declared contraband of war.
The suggestion in the letter of February 20, 1904, that certain words quoted from the Japanese instructions had been mistransmitted [149]or misquoted was borne out by the Regulations governing captures at sea, issued on March 15, 1904, Art. 14 of which announces that certain goods are contraband "in case they are destined to the enemy's army or navy, or in case they are destined to the enemy's territory, and from the landing place it can be inferred that they are intended for military purposes."
The letters of March 10 and 15, 1905, will sufficiently explain themselves. The accuracy of the statements contained in them was vouched for by Baron Suyematsu, in a letter which appeared in The Times for March 16, to the effect that: "In Japan the matters relating to the organisation and procedure of the prize court, and the matters relating to prize, contraband goods, &c., are regulated by two separate sets of laws.... The so-called prize Court law of August 20, 1894, and amendment dated March 1, 1904, which your correspondent refers to, are the provisions relating to the former matters. The rules regulating the latter matters—viz. prize, contraband goods, &c., are not comprised in them. The rules which relate to the latter matters, as existing at present, are consolidated and comprised in an enactment which was issued on March 7, 1904.... Under the circumstances I can only repeat what Professor Holland says ... in other words, I fully concur with the views taken by the Professor."
The distinction between articles which are "absolutely contraband," those which are "conditionally contraband," and those which are incapable of being declared contraband was expressly adopted in Arts. 22, 24, and 28 of the unratified Declaration of London of 1909, as to which, see the comment at the end of this section, as also the whole of Section 10.
Sir,—This question has now been answered, in unmistakable terms, on behalf of this country by Lord Lansdowne in his reply, which you printed yesterday, to Messrs. Powley, Thomas, and Co., and on behalf of Japan by the proclamation which appears in The Times of to-day. Both of these documents set forth the old British doctrine, now fully adopted in the United States, and beginning to win its way on the Continent of Europe, that, besides articles which are absolutely contraband, other articles ancipitis usus, and amongst them coal, may become so under certain conditions. "When destined," says Lord Lansdowne, "for warlike as opposed to industrial use." "When destined," says Japan,[150] "for the enemy's army or navy, or in such cases where, being goods arriving, at enemy's territory, there is reason to believe that they are intended for use of enemy's army or navy."
I may say that the words which I have italicised must, I think, have been mistranslated or mistransmitted. Their intention is, doubtless, substantially that which was more clearly expressed in the Japanese proclamation of 1894 by the words: "Either the enemy's fleet at sea or a hostile port used exclusively or mainly for naval or military equipment."
A phrase in your issue of to-day with reference to the Cardiff coal trade suggests that it may be worth while to touch upon the existence of a widely-spread confusion between the grounds on which export of coal may be prohibited by a neutral country and those which justify its confiscation, although on board a neutral ship, by a belligerent. A neutral State restrains, under certain circumstances, the export of coal, not because coal is contraband, but because such export is converting the neutral territory into a base of belligerent operations. The question of contraband or no contraband only arises between the neutral carrier and the belligerent when the latter claims to be entitled to interfere with the trade of the former.
Since the rules applicable to the carriage of coal are, I venture to think, equally applicable, to the carriage of foodstuffs, I may perhaps be allowed to add a few words with reference to the letter addressed to you a day or two ago by Sir Henry Bliss. I share his desire for some explanation of the telegram which reached you on the 12th of this month from British Columbia. One would like to know: (1) What is "the Government," if any, which has instructed the Empress Line not to forward foodstuffs to Japan; (2) whether the refusal relates to foodstuffs generally, or only to those with a destination for warlike use; (3) what is meant by the statement that "the steamers of the Empress Line belong to the Naval Reserve"? I presume the meaning to be that the line is subsidised with a view to the employment [151]of the ships of the company as British cruisers when Great Britain is at war. The bearing of this fact upon the employment of the ships when Great Britain is at peace is far from apparent. It is, of course, possible that the Government contract with the company may have been so drawn, ex abundanti cautela, as greatly to restrict what would otherwise have been the legitimate trade of the company.
Sir,—The text of the decision of the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg in the case of the Calchas has at length reached this country, and we are thus informed, upon the highest authority, though, perhaps, not in the clearest language, of the meaning which is now to be placed upon the Russian notification that cotton is contraband of war.
This notification, promulgated on April 21, 1904, was received with general amazement, not diminished by an official gloss to the effect that it "applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of explosives, and not to yarn or tissues." It must be remembered that at the date mentioned, and for some months afterwards, Russia stoutly maintained that all the articles enumerated in her list of contraband of February 28, 1904, and in the additions to that list, were "absolutely" such; i.e. were confiscable if in course of carriage to any enemy's port, irrespectively of the character of that port, or of the use to which the articles would probably be put. It was only after much correspondence, and the receipt of strong protests from Great Britain and the United States, that Russia consented to recognise the well-known distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband; the latter class consisting of articles useful in peace as well as for war, the character of which must, therefore, depend upon whether they are, in [152]point of fact, destined for warlike or for peaceful uses. This concession was made about the middle of September last, and it was then agreed that provisions should be placed in the secondary category (as was duly explained in the Petersburg judgment in the case of the Arabia on December 14) together with some other articles, among which it seemed that raw cotton was not included.
The final decision in the Calchas case marks a welcome change of policy. Cotton has now followed foodstuffs into the category of "conditional" contraband, and effect has so far been given to the representations on the subject made by Mr. Hay in circular despatches of June 10 and August 30, 1904, and by Sir Charles Hardinge, in a note presented to Count Lamsdorff on October 9 of the same year.
The question had become a practical one in the case of the Calchas. On July 25 this vessel, laden with, inter alia, nine tons of raw cotton for Yokohama and Kobe, was seized by a Russian cruiser and carried into Vladivostok, where, on September 18, the cotton, together with other portions of her cargo, was condemned as absolutely contraband. The reasons for repudiating this decision, and the notification to which it gave effect, were not far to seek, and it may still be worth while to insist upon them. As against Russia, it is well to recall that, from the days of the Armed Neutralities onwards, her traditional policy has been to favour a very restricted list of contraband; that when in 1877, as again in 1900 and 1904, she included in it materials "servant de faire sauter les obstacles," the examples given of such materials were things so immediately fitted for warlike use as "les mines, les torpilles, la dynamite," &c.; and that what is said as to "conditional contraband" by her trusted adviser, Professor de Martens, in his Droit International, t. iii (1887), pp. 351-354, can scarcely be reconciled with her recent action.
But a still stronger argument against the inclusion of cotton in the list of "absolute" contraband is that this is wholly without precedent. It has, indeed, been alleged that [153]cotton was declared to be "contraband" by the United States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will, however, be searched in vain for anything of the kind. The mistake is due to an occasional loose employment of the term, as descriptive of articles found by an invader in an enemy's territory, which, although the property of private, and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so useful for the purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That this was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the arguments in the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache against the United States in 1886 (Foreign Relations of U.S., 1887). A similarly loose use of the term was its application by General B.F. Butler to runaway slaves who had been employed on military works—an application of which he confessed himself "never very proud as a lawyer," though "as an executive officer, much comforted with it." The phrase caught the popular fancy, came to be applied to slaves generally, and was immortalised in a song, long a favourite among negro children, the refrain of which was "I'se a happy little contraband."
The decision of the Court of St. Petersburg in the case of the Calchas, so far as it recognises the existence of a conditional class of contraband, and that raw cotton, as res ancipitis usus, must be treated in accordance with the rules applicable to goods belonging to that class, has laid down an unimpeachable proposition of law. Whether the view taken by the Court of the facts of the case, so far as they relate to the cotton cargo, is equally satisfactory, is a different and less important question, upon which I refrain from troubling you upon the present occasion.
P.S.—It may be worth while to add, for the benefit of those only who care to be provided with a clue (not to be [154]found in the judgment) through the somewhat labyrinthine details of the question under discussion, a summary of its history. The Russian rules as to contraband are contained in several documents—viz. the "Regulations as to Naval Prize" of 1895, Arts. 11-14; the "Admiralty Instructions" of 1900, Arts. 97, 98, and the appended "Special Declaration" as to the articles considered to be contraband (partly modelled on the list of 1877); the "Imperial Order" of February 28, 1904, rule 6 (this Order keeps alive the rules of 1895 and 1900, except in so far as they are varied by it); the "Order" of March 19, 1904, defining "food" and bringing machinery of certain kinds into the list of contraband; the "Order," of April 21, 1904, bringing "raw cotton" into the list; and, lastly, the "Instructions" of September 30 and October 28, 1904, recognising, in effect, a class of "conditional" contraband, placing foodstuffs in this class, as also, ultimately, other objects "capable of warlike use and not specified in sections 1-9 of rule 6."
Sir,—Your correspondent "Judex" will rejoice, as I do, that cotton has now been declared to be "absolute contraband." May I, however, suggest that the topic should be discussed without any reference to the fortunately unratified Declaration of London, that premature attempt to codify the law of maritime warfare, claiming, misleadingly, that its rules "correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of international law"?
It is surely regrettable that, by the Order in Council of August 20, 1914, our Government adopted the provisions of the Declaration "during the present hostilities," and "subject to various additions and modifications," the list of which has since been considerably extended. This [155]half-hearted course of action painfully recalls certain vicious methods of legislation by reference, and was additionally uncalled for, since, as has been shown by recent events, about two-thirds of the rules laid down by the Declaration are inapplicable to modern warfare.
The straightforward announcement made by the United States in their Note of January 25 is surely far preferable. It states in plain terms that, "As the Declaration of London is not in force, the rules of international law only apply. As to articles to be regarded as contraband there is no general agreement between nations." In point of fact, the hard-and-fast categories of neutral imports, suggested by the threefold Grotian division, as set forth in the Declaration, are unlikely ever to be generally accepted. Even Grotius is careful to limit his proposals, and Bynkershoek, in commenting upon them, points out that the test of contraband of the most noxious kind must be the, possibly exceptional, importance of objects for hostile use; their being of use also for non-hostile purposes being immaterial ("nec interesse an et extra bellum usum praebeant"). The application of these remarks to the case of cotton is sufficiently obvious.
Sir,—I hope you will allow me space for a few words with reference to some statements occurring to-day in your Marine Insurance news which I venture to think are of a misleading character.
Your Correspondent observes that—
"Although the Japanese are signatories to the Treaty of Paris, it should not be forgotten that they haw a Prize Court Law of their own (August 20, 1894), and are more likely to follow its provisions, in [156]dealing with the various captured steamers, than the general principles of the Treaty of Paris."
Upon this paragraph let me remark:—
1. The action of the Japanese is in full accordance with the letter and spirit of all four articles of the Declaration of Paris. ("The Treaty of Paris" has, of course, no bearing upon prize law.)
2. "The general principles" of that Declaration is a phrase which conveys to me, I confess, no meaning.
3. The Japanese have, of course, a prize law of their own, borrowed, for the most part, from our own Admiralty Manual of Prize Law. Neither the British nor the Japanese instructions are in conflict with, or indeed stand in any relation to, the Declaration of Paris.
4. The existing prize law of Japan was promulgated on March 7, 1904, not on August 20, 1894.
Your Correspondent goes on to say that the Japanese definition of contraband "is almost as sweeping as was the Russian definition, to which the British Government took active objection last summer." So far is this from being the case that the Japanese list is practically the same as our own, both systems recognising the distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband, which, till the other day, was ignored by Russia.
The Japanese rules as to the cases in which ships carrying contraband may be confiscated are quite reasonable and in accordance with British views. The third ground for confiscation mentioned by your Correspondent does not occur in the instructions of 1904.
Ships violating a blockade are, of course, confiscable; but the Japanese do not, as your Correspondent seems to have been informed, make the existence of a blockade conditional upon its having been "notified to the Consuls of all States in the blockaded port." Commanders are, no doubt, instructed to notify the fact, "as far as possible, to the competent authorities and the Consuls of the neutral[157] Powers within the circumference of the blockade"; but that is a very different thing.
Sir,—Let me assure your correspondent upon Marine Insurance that I have been familiar, ever since its promulgation, with the Japanese prize law of 1894, quoted by him as authority for statements made in your issue of March 10, the misleading character of which I felt bound to point out in a letter of the same date. All the topics mentioned by him on that occasion, and to-day, are, however, regulated, not by that law, but by notifications and instructions issued from time to time during 1904.
I make it my business not only to be authoritatively informed on such matters, but also to see that my information is up to date.
(Continuous Voyages)
The opinion expressed in the letter which immediately follows, that the American decisions, applying to carriage of contraband the doctrine of "continuous voyages," seem to be "demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a British prize Court," was referred to by Lord Salisbury in a despatch of January 10, 1900, to be communicated to Count von Bülow, with reference to the seizure of Bundesrath. Parl. Papers, Africa, No. 1 (1900), p. 19.
The distinction, drawn in the same letter, between "carriage of contraband" and "enemy service," which has sometimes been lost sight of, was established in the case of Yangtsze Insurance Association v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Company, [1908] K.B. 910, in which it was held by Bigham, J., that the transport of military officers of a belligerent State, as passengers in a neutral ship, is not a breach or a warranty against contraband of war in a policy of marine insurance.[158] The carriage of enemy despatches will no longer be generally treated as "enemy service" since The Hague Convention, No. xi. of 1907, ratified by most of the Powers, including Great Britain, on November 27, 1909, by Art. 1 provides that, except in the case of breach of blockade, "the postal correspondence of neutrals or belligerents, whether of an official or a private character, found on board a neutral or enemy ship on the High Seas is inviolable."
The case of the Allanton, which gave occasion for the letter of July 11, 1904, was as follows. This British ship left Cardiff on February 24 of that year, with a cargo of coal to be delivered either at Hong-Kong or Sasebo. On arrival at Hong-Kong, she found orders to deliver at Sasebo, and, having made delivery accordingly, was chartered by a Japanese company at another Japanese port, to carry coal to a British firm at Singapore. On her way thither, she was captured by a Russian squadron and taken in to Vladivostok, where on June 24 she was condemned by the prize Court for carriage of contraband. The Court held, ignoring the rule that a vessel ceases to be in dilecto when she has "deposited" her contraband (since affirmed by Art. 38 of the Declaration of London of 1909), that she was liable in respect of her voyage to Sasebo; as also in respect of the voyage on which she was captured, on the ground that her real destination was at that time the Japanese fleet, or some Japanese port. This decision was reversed, as to both ship and cargo, by the Court of Appeal at St. Petersburg, on October 22 of the same year.
The doctrine of "continuous voyages" was by the Declaration of London, Art. 30, recognised in the case of "absolute," but by Art. 35 was stated to be inapplicable to the case of "conditional" contraband.
Sir,—Questions of maritime international law which are likely to give rise not only to forensic argument in the prize Courts which we have established at Durban and at the Cape, but also to diplomatic communications between Great Britain and neutral Governments, should obviously be handled just now with a large measure of reserve. Lord Rosebery has, however, in your columns called upon our Government to define its policy with reference to foodstuffs as contraband of war, while several other correspondents have touched upon, cognate topics. You may perhaps therefore be disposed to allow one who is [159]responsible for the Admiralty Manual of the Law of Prize, to which reference has been made by your correspondent "S.," to make a few statements as to points upon which it may be desirable for the general reader to be in possession of information accurate, one may venture to hope, as far as it goes.
Of the four inconveniences to which neutral trading vessels are liable in time of war, "blockade" may be left out of present consideration. You can only blockade the ports of your enemy, and the South African Republics have no port of their own. The three other inconveniences must, however, all be endured—viz. prohibition to carry "contraband," prohibition to engage in "enemy service," and liability to be "visited and searched" anywhere except within three miles of a neutral coast, in order that it may be ascertained whether they are disregarding either of these prohibitions, as to the meaning of which some explanation may not be superfluous.
1. "Carriage of contraband" implies (1) that the goods carried are fit for hostile use; (2) that they are on their way to a hostile destination. Each of these requirements has given rise to wide divergence of views and to a considerable literature. As to (1), while Continental opinion and practice favour a hard-and-fast list of contraband articles, comprising only such as are already suited, or can readily be adapted, for use in operations of war, English and American opinion and practice favour a longer list, and one capable of being from time to time extended to meet the special exigencies of the war. In such a list may figure even provisions, "under circumstances arising out of the particular situation of the war," especially if "going with a highly probable destination to military use"—Lord Stowell in the Jonge Margaretha (1 Rob. 188); cf. Story, J., in the Commercen (1 Wheat. 382), the date and purport of which are, by the by, incorrectly given by "S." It would be in accordance with our own previous practice and with Lord Granville's [160]despatches during the war between France and China in 1885, if we treated flour as contraband only when ear-marked as destined for the use of enemy fleets, armies, or fortresses. Even in such cases our practice has been not to confiscate the cargo, but merely to exercise over it a right of "pre-emption," so as to deprive the enemy of its use without doing more injury than can be helped to neutral trade—as is explained by Lord Stowell in the Haabet (2 Rob. 174). As to (2), the rule was expressed by Lord Stowell to be that "goods going to a neutral port cannot come under the description of contraband, all goods going there being equally lawful"—Imina (3 Rob. 167); but innovations were made upon this rule during the American Civil War which seem to be demanded by the conditions of modern commerce, and might well be followed by a British prize Court. It was held that contraband goods, although bona fide on their way to a neutral port, might be condemned, if intended afterwards to reach the enemy by another ship or even by means of land carriage—Bermuda (3 Wallace); Peterhoff (5 Wallace). A consignment to Lorenzo Marques, connected as is the town by only forty miles of railway with the Transvaal frontier, would seem to be well within the principles of the Civil War cases as to "continuous voyages."
2. The carriage by a neutral ship of enemy troops, or of even a few military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is an "enemy service" of so important a kind as to involve the confiscation of the vessel concerned, a penalty which, under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed upon carriage of "contraband" property so called. See Lord Stowell's luminous judgments in Orozembo (6 Rob. 430) and Atalanta (ib. 440). The alleged offence of the ship Bundesrath would seem to be of this description.
The questions, both of "contraband" and of "enemy service," with which our prize Courts must before long have to deal, will be such as to demand from the Judges a competent knowledge of the law of prize, scrupulous fairness [161]towards neutral claimants, and prompt penetration of the Protean disguises which illicit trade so readily assumes in time of war.