§ 396. It is obvious that such articles as are not susceptible of use in war may never be declared contraband, whether their destination be hostile or not.

The Declaration of London, by article 27, expressly recognises this and, in article 28—the so-called free list—enumerates seventeen groups of articles which may never be declared contraband in spite of their hostile destination, namely:—

(1) Raw cotton, wool, silk, jute, flax, hemp, and other raw materials of the textile industries, and yarns of the same.

(2) Oil seeds and nuts; copra.

(3) Rubber, resins, gums, and lacs; hops.

(4) Raw hides and horns, bones, and ivory.

(5) Natural and artificial manures, including nitrates and phosphates for agricultural purposes.

(6) Metallic ores.

(7) Earths, clays, lime, chalk, stone, including marble, bricks, slates, and tiles.

(8) Chinaware and glass.

(9) Paper and paper-making materials.

(10) Soap, paint and colours, including articles exclusively used in their manufacture, and varnish.

(11) Bleaching powder, soda, ash, caustic soda, salt cake, ammonia, sulphate of ammonia, and sulphate of copper.

(12) Agricultural, mining, textile, and printing machinery.

(13) Precious and semi-precious stones, pearls, mother-of-pearl, and coral.

(14) Clocks and watches, other than chronometers.

(15) Fashion and fancy goods.

(16) Feathers of all kinds, hairs, and bristles.

(17) Articles of household furniture and decoration, office furniture and requisites.

This free list is of great importance to neutral trade, more particularly as it not only comprises such articles as are not susceptible of use in war, but likewise a number of articles, the possibility of the use of which in war is so remote as practically to make them not susceptible of use in war. The list guarantees to a number of industries and trades of neutral States freedom from interference on the part of belligerents, and it is to be expected that in time the list will be increased.

§ 396a. Besides the seventeen groups of articles contained in the free list, there are two other groups of free articles.

Secondly, articles intended for the use of the vessel in which they are found or for the use of her crew and passengers during the voyage. Hostile destination being essential before any kinds of articles may be considered contraband, those articles which are carried by a vessel evidently for her own use or for the use of her crew and passengers can never be contraband, as is now specially stipulated by article 29, No. 2, of the Declaration of London. Merchantmen frequently carry a gun and a certain amount of ammunition for the purpose of signalling, and, if they navigate in parts of the sea where there is danger of piracy, they frequently carry a certain amount of arms and ammunition for defence against an attack by pirates. It will not be difficult either for the searching belligerent man-of-war or for the Prize Court to ascertain whether or no such arms and ammunition are carried bona fide.

§ 397. A neutral vessel, whether carrying contraband or not, can herself be contraband. Such is the case when she has been built or fitted out for use in war and is on her way to the enemy. Although it is the duty of neutrals—see article 8 of Convention XIII., and above §§ 334 and 350—to employ the means at their disposal to prevent the fitting out, arming, or the departure of any vessel within their jurisdiction, which they have reason to believe is intended to cruise or to engage in hostile operations against a belligerent, their duty of impartiality does not compel them to prevent their subjects from supplying a belligerent with vessels fit for use in war except where the vessel concerned has been built or fitted out by order of a belligerent. Subjects of neutrals may therefore—unless prevented from so doing by Municipal Law, as, for instance, subjects of the British Crown by §§ 8 and 9 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870—by way of trade supply belligerents with vessels of any kind, provided these vessels have not been built or fitted out by order of the belligerent concerned. According to the practice which has hitherto prevailed, such vessels, being equivalent to arms, used to be considered as absolute contraband.[829] And it made no difference whether or no they were fit for use as men-of-war, it sufficed that they were fit to be used for the transport of troops and the like.

According to article 22, No. 10, article 24, No. 6, and article 34 of the Declaration of London the law concerning contraband vessels will be the following:—A distinction is made between warships on the one hand, and, on the other, vessels and the like generally. According to article 22, No. 10, warships, including their boats and their distinctive component parts of such a nature that they can only be used on a vessel of war, may be treated as absolute contraband without notice. On the other hand, according to article 24, No. 6, vessels, craft, and boats of all kinds, and, further, floating docks, parts of docks and their component parts may only be treated as conditional contraband, but may be so treated without notice. And it must be specially observed that whereas with regard to articles of conditional contraband generally, there is a legal presumption established as to their hostile destination in case they are consigned to enemy authorities or to a contractor established in the enemy country, who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy, article 34 expressly exempts merchant vessels from this presumption in case it is sought to prove that they themselves are contraband.

II CARRIAGE OF CONTRABAND

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 391.

§ 398. The guaranteed freedom of commerce making the sale of articles of all kinds to belligerents by subjects of neutrals legitimate, articles of conditional as well as absolute contraband may be supplied by sale to either belligerent by these individuals. And the carriage of such articles by neutral merchantmen on the Open Sea is, as far as International Law is concerned, quite as legitimate as their sale. The carrier of contraband by no means violates an injunction of the Law of Nations. But belligerents have by the Law of Nations the right to prohibit and punish the carriage of contraband by neutral merchantmen, and the carrier of contraband violates, for this reason, an injunction of the belligerent concerned. It is not International Law, but the Municipal Law of the belligerents, which makes carriage of contraband illegitimate and penal.[830] The question why the carriage of contraband articles may nevertheless be prohibited and punished by the belligerents, although it is quite legitimate so far as International Law is concerned, can only be answered by a reference to the historical development of the Law of Nations. In contradistinction to former practice, which interdicted all trade between neutrals and the enemy, the principle of freedom of commerce between subjects of neutrals and either belligerent has gradually become universally recognised; but this recognition included from the beginning the right of either belligerent to punish carriage of contraband on the sea. And the reason obviously is the necessity for belligerents in the interest of self-preservation to prevent the import of such articles as may strengthen the enemy, and to confiscate the contraband cargo, and eventually the vessel also, as a deterrent to other vessels.

The present condition of the matter of carriage of contraband[831] is therefore a compromise. In the interest of the generally recognised principle of freedom of commerce between belligerents and subjects of neutrals, International Law does not require neutrals to prevent their subjects from carrying contraband; on the other hand, International Law empowers either belligerent to prohibit and punish carriage of contraband just as it—see above, § 383—empowers either belligerent to prohibit and punish breach of blockade.

The Declaration of London has in no way altered the existing condition of the matter. The fact that articles 22 and 24 give a list of articles which, without special declaration and notice, may always be treated as absolute and conditional contraband respectively, does not involve the forbidding by International Law of the carriage of the articles. Articles 22 and 24 are certainly part of International Law, yet they merely embody an agreement as to what goods may—but they need not—be treated as contraband.

§ 399. Carriage of contraband commonly occurs where a vessel is engaged in carrying to an enemy port such goods as are contraband when they have a hostile destination. In such cases it makes no difference whether the fact that the vessel is destined for an enemy port becomes apparent from her papers, she being bound to such port, or whether she is found at sea sailing on a course for an enemy port, although her papers show her to be bound to a neutral port. And, further, it makes no difference, according to the hitherto prevailing practice of Great Britain and the United States of America at any rate, that she is bound to a neutral port and that the articles concerned are, according to her papers, destined for a neutral port, if only she is to call at an intermediate enemy port or is to meet enemy naval forces at sea in the course of her voyage to the neutral port of destination;[832] for otherwise the door would be open to deceit, and it would always be pretended that goods which a vessel is engaged in carrying to such intermediate enemy places were intended for the neutral port of ultimate destination. For the same reason a vessel carrying such articles as are contraband when they have a hostile destination is considered to be carrying contraband if her papers show that her destination is dependent upon contingencies under which she may have to call at an enemy port, unless she proves that she has abandoned the intention of eventually calling there.[833]

The Declaration of London distinguishes between carriage of absolute and conditional contraband:—

As regards absolute contraband, a vessel is, according to article 32, considered to be carrying contraband whether the fact that she is destined for an enemy port becomes evident from her papers, she being bound for such port, or whether she is found at sea sailing for an enemy port, although her papers show her to be bound for a neutral port. And, according to article 31, No. 2, it makes no difference that the vessel is bound for a neutral port and that the articles concerned are, according to her papers, destined for a neutral port, if only she is to touch at an intermediate enemy port or is to meet armed forces of the enemy before reaching the neutral port for which the goods in question are consigned.

As regards conditional contraband, a vessel is, according to article 35, considered to be carrying contraband whether her papers show her to be destined to an enemy port, or, being clearly found out of the course to a neutral port indicated by her papers, she is unable to give adequate reasons to justify such deviation.

Article 32 as well as article 35 stipulates that ship papers are conclusive proof as to the destination of the vessel and of the cargo, unless the vessel is clearly found out of the course indicated by her papers, but the Report of the Drafting Committee of the Naval Conference of London emphasises the fact that the rule of the conclusiveness of ship papers must not be interpreted too literally, since otherwise fraud would be made easy. Ship papers are conclusive proof—says the Report—unless facts show their evidence to be false.

§ 400. On occasions a neutral vessel carrying such articles as are contraband if they have a hostile destination is, according to her papers, ostensibly bound for a neutral port, but is intended, after having called and eventually having delivered her cargo there, to carry the same cargo from there to an enemy port. There is, of course, no doubt that such vessels are carrying contraband whilst engaged in carrying the articles concerned from the neutral to the enemy port. But during the American Civil War the question arose whether they may already be considered to be carrying contraband when on their way from the port of starting to the neutral port from which they are afterwards to carry the cargo to an enemy port, since they are really intended to carry the cargo from the port of starting to an enemy port, although not directly, but circuitously, by a roundabout way. The American Prize Courts answered the question in the affirmative by applying to the carriage of contraband the principle of dolus non purgatur circuitu and the so-called doctrine of continuous voyages.[834] This attitude of the American Prize Courts has called forth protests from many authorities,[835] British as well as foreign, but Great Britain has not protested, and from the attitude of the British Government in the case of the Bundesrath and other vessels in 1900 during the South African War it could safely, although indirectly only, be concluded that Great Britain considered the practice of the American Prize Courts correct and just, and that, when a belligerent, she intended to apply the same principles. This could also be inferred from § 71 of Holland's Manual of Naval Prize Law, which established the rule: "The ostensible destination of a vessel is sometimes a neutral port, while she is in reality intended, after touching, and even landing and colourably delivering over her cargo there, to proceed with the same cargo to an enemy port. In such a case the voyage is held to be 'continuous,' and the destination is held to be hostile throughout." And provided that the intention of the vessel is really to carry the cargo circuitously, by a roundabout way, to an enemy port, and further provided, that a mere suspicion is not held for a proof of such intention, I cannot see why this application of the doctrine of continuous voyages should not be considered reasonable, just, and adequate.

§ 401. It also happens in war that neutral vessels carry to neutral ports such articles as are contraband if bound for a hostile destination, the vessel being cognisant or not of the fact that arrangements have been made for the articles to be afterwards brought by land or sea into the hands of the enemy. And the question has arisen whether such vessels on their voyage to the neutral port may be considered to be carrying contraband of war.[836] As early as 1855, during the Crimean War, the French Conseil-Général des Prises, in condemning the cargo of saltpetre of the Hanoverian neutral vessel Vrow Houwina, answered the question in the affirmative;[837] but it was not until the American Civil War that the question was decided on principle. Since from the British port of Nassau, in the Bahamas, and from other neutral ports near the coast of the Confederate States, goods, first brought to these nearer neutral ports by vessels coming from more distant neutral ports were carried to the blockaded coast of the Southern States, Federal cruisers seized several vessels destined and actually on their voyage to Nassau and other neutral ports because all or parts of their cargoes were ultimately destined for the enemy. And the American Courts considered those vessels to be carrying contraband, although they were sailing from one neutral port to another, on clear proof that the goods concerned were destined to be transported by land or sea from the neutral port of landing into the enemy territory. The leading cases are those of the Springbok and Peterhoff, which have been mentioned above in § 385 (4), for the Courts found the seizure of these and other vessels justified on the ground of carriage of contraband as well as on the ground of breach of blockade. Thus, another application of the doctrine of continuous voyages came into existence, since vessels whilst sailing between two neutral ports could only be considered to be carrying contraband when the transport first from one neutral port to another and afterwards from the latter to the enemy territory had been regarded as one continuous voyage. This application of the doctrine of continuous voyages is fitly termed "doctrine of continuous transports."

§ 402. This application of the doctrine of continuous voyages under the new form of continuous transports has likewise been condemned by many British and foreign authorities; but Great Britain did not protest in this case either—on the contrary, as was mentioned above in § 385 (4), she declined to interfere in favour of the British owners of the vessels and cargoes concerned. And that she really considered the practice of the American Courts just and sound became clearly apparent by her attitude during the South African War. When, in 1900, the Bundesrath, Herzog, and General, German vessels sailing from German neutral ports to the Portuguese neutral port of Lorenzo Marques in Delagoa Bay, were seized by British cruisers under the suspicion of carrying contraband, Germany demanded their release, maintaining that no carriage of contraband could be said to take place by vessels sailing from one neutral port to another. But Great Britain refused to admit this principle, maintaining that articles ultimately destined for the enemy were contraband, although the vessels carrying them were bound for a neutral port.[838]

There is no doubt that this attitude of the British Government was contrary to the opinion of the prominent English[839] writers on International Law. Even the Manual of Naval Prize Law, edited by Professor Holland[840] in 1888, and "issued by authority of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty," reprobated the American practice, for in § 72 it lays down the following rule: "... If the destination of the vessel be neutral, then the destination of the goods on board should be considered neutral, notwithstanding it may appear from the papers or otherwise that the goods themselves have an ulterior destination by transhipment, overland conveyance, or otherwise." And the practice of British Prize Courts in the past would seem to have been in accordance with this rule. In 1798, during war between England and the Netherlands, the neutral ship Imina,[841] which had left the neutral port of Dantzig for Amsterdam carrying ship's timber, but on hearing of the blockade of Amsterdam by the British had changed her course for the neutral port of Emden, was seized on her voyage to Emden by a British cruiser; she was, however, released by Sir William Scott because she had no intention of breaking blockade, and because a vessel could only be considered as carrying contraband whilst on a voyage to an enemy port. "The rule respecting contraband, as I have always understood it, is that the articles must be taken in delicto, in the actual prosecution of the voyage to an enemy port," said Sir William Scott.[842]

§ 403. Although the majority of Continental writers condemn the doctrine of continuous transports, several eminent Continental authorities support it. Thus, Gessner (p. 119) emphatically asserts that the destination of the carrying vessel is of no importance compared with the destination of the carried goods themselves. Bluntschli, although he condemns in § 835 the American practice regarding breach of blockade committed by a vessel sailing from one neutral port to another, expressly approves in § 813 of the American practice regarding carriage of contraband by a vessel sailing between two neutral ports, yet carrying goods with a hostile destination. Kleen (I. § 95, p. 388) condemns the rule that the neutral destination of the vessel makes the goods appear likewise neutral, and defends seizure in the case of a hostile destination of the goods on a vessel sailing between two neutral ports; he expressly states that such goods are contraband from the moment the carrying vessel leaves the port of loading. Fiore (III. No. 1649) reprobates the theory of continuous voyages as applied by British and American Courts, but he asserts nevertheless that the hostile destination of certain goods carried by a vessel sailing to a neutral port justifies the vessel being regarded as carrying contraband, and the seizure thereof. Bonfils (No. 1569) takes up the same standpoint as Bluntschli, admitting the application of the theory of continuous voyages to carriage of contraband, but reprobating its application to breach of blockade. And the Institute of International Law adopted the rule:[843] "La destination pour l'ennemi est présumée lorsque le transport va à l'un de ses ports, ou bien à un port neutre qui, d'après des preuves évidentes et de fait incontestable, n'est qu'une étape pour l'ennemi, comme but final de la même opération commerciale." Thus this representative body of authorities of all nations has fully adopted the American application of the doctrine of continuous voyages to contraband, and thereby recognised the possibility of circuitous as well as indirect carriage of contraband.

And it must be mentioned that the attitude of several Continental States has hitherto been in favour of the American practice. Thus, according to §§ 4 and 6 of the Prussian Regulations of 1864 regarding Naval Prizes, it was the hostile destination of the goods or the destination of the vessel to an enemy port which made a vessel appear as carrying contraband and which justified her seizure. In Sweden the same was valid.[844] Thus, further, an Italian Prize Court during the war with Abyssinia in 1896 justified the seizure in the Red Sea of the Dutch vessel Doelwijk,[845] which sailed for the neutral French port of Djibouti, carrying a cargo of arms and ammunition destined for the Abyssinian army and to be transported to Abyssinia after having been landed at Djibouti.

§ 403a. The Declaration of London offers a compromise in order to settle the controversy respecting the application of the doctrine of continuous voyages to the carriage of contraband, whether circuitous or indirect carriage be concerned.

(1) On the one hand, article 30 recognises with regard to absolute contraband the application of the doctrine of continuous voyages—both to circuitous and indirect carriage of contraband—by enacting that: "absolute contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined to territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy or to the armed forces of the enemy. It is immaterial whether the carriage of the goods is direct or entails transhipment or a subsequent transport by land."

(2) On the other hand, article 35 categorically rejects the doctrine of continuous voyages with regard to conditional contraband by enacting that "conditional contraband is not liable to capture except when found on board a vessel bound for territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or for the armed forces of the enemy,[846] and when it is not to be discharged in an intervening neutral port."

(3) However, in cases where the enemy country has no seaboard, article 36—in contradistinction to the provisions of article 35—expressly recognises the doctrine of continuous voyages for conditional contraband also by enacting that "notwithstanding the provisions of article 35, conditional contraband, if shown to have the destination referred to in article 33, is liable to capture in cases where the enemy country has no seaboard."

III CONSEQUENCES OF CARRIAGE OF CONTRABAND

See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 391.

§ 404. It has always been universally recognised by theory and practice that a vessel carrying contraband may be seized by the cruisers of the belligerent concerned. But seizure is allowed only so long as a vessel is in delicto, which commences when she leaves the port of starting and ends when she has deposited the contraband goods, whether with the enemy or otherwise. The rule is generally recognised, therefore, that a vessel which has deposited her contraband may not be seized on her return voyage. British and American practice, however, has hitherto admitted one exception to this rule—namely, in the case in which a vessel has carried contraband on her outward voyage with simulated and false papers.[847] But no exception has been admitted by the practice of other countries. Thus, when in 1879, during war between Peru and Chili, the German vessel Luxor, after having carried a cargo of arms and ammunition from Monte Video to Valparaiso, was seized in the harbour of Callao, in Peru, and condemned by the Peruvian Prize Courts for carrying contraband, Germany interfered and succeeded in getting the vessel released.

It must be specially observed that seizure for carriage of contraband is only admissible on the Open Sea and in the maritime territorial belts of the belligerents. Seizure within the maritime belt of neutrals would be a violation of neutrality.

The Declaration of London entirely confirms these old customary rules, but does not recognise the above-mentioned British exception. Article 37 enacts that a vessel carrying goods liable to capture as absolute or conditional contraband may be captured on the high seas or in the territorial waters of the belligerents throughout the whole of her voyage even if she is to touch at a port of call before reaching the hostile destination. Article 38 enacts that a vessel may not be captured on the ground that she has carried contraband on a previous occasion if such carriage is in point of fact at an end.

§ 405. In former times neither in theory nor in practice have similar rules been recognised with regard to the penalty of carriage of contraband. The penalty was frequently confiscation not only of the contraband cargo itself, but also of all other parts of the cargo, together with the vessel. Only France made an exception, since according to an ordonnance of 1584 she did not even confiscate the contraband goods themselves, but only seized them against payment of their value, and it was not until 1681 that an ordonnance proclaimed confiscation of contraband, but with exclusion of the vessel and the innocent part of the cargo.[848] During the seventeenth century this distinction between contraband on the one hand, and, on the other, the innocent goods and the vessel was clearly recognised by Zouche and Bynkershoek, and confiscation of the contraband only became more and more the rule, certain cases excepted. During the eighteenth century the right to confiscate contraband was frequently contested, and it is remarkable as regards the change of attitude of some States that by article 13 of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce[849] concluded in 1785 between Prussia and the United States of America all confiscation was abolished. This article provided that the belligerent should have the right to stop vessels carrying contraband and to detain them for such length of time as might be necessary to prevent possible damage by them, but such detained vessels should be paid compensation for the arrest imposed upon them. It further provided that the belligerent could seize all contraband against payment of its full value, and that, if the captain of a vessel stopped for carrying contraband should deliver up all contraband, the vessel should at once be set free. I doubt whether any other treaty of the same kind was entered into by either Prussia or the United States.[850] And it is certain that, if any rule regarding penalty for carriage of contraband was generally recognised at all, it was the rule that contraband goods could be confiscated. But there always remained the difficulty that it was controversial what articles were contraband, and that the practice of States varied much regarding the question as to whether the vessel herself and innocent cargo carried by her could be confiscated. For beyond the rule that absolute contraband could be confiscated, there was no unanimity regarding the fate of the vessel and the innocent part of the cargo. Great Britain and the United States of America hitherto confiscated the vessel when the owner of the contraband was also the owner of the vessel; they also confiscated such part of the innocent cargo as belonged to the owner of the contraband goods; they, lastly, confiscated the vessel, although her owner was not the owner of the contraband, provided he knew of the fact that his vessel was carrying contraband, or provided the vessel sailed with false or simulated papers for the purpose of carrying contraband.[851] Some States allowed such vessel carrying contraband as was not herself liable to confiscation to proceed with her voyage on delivery of her contraband goods to the seizing cruiser,[852] but Great Britain[853] and other States insisted upon the vessel being brought before a Prize Court in every case.