CONTRABAND CONTROL

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 October 1939, Page 7

CONTRABAND CONTROL

SOVIET PROTEST TO BRITAIN NEUTRAL INTERESTS IMPAIRED [BY CABLE —PRESS ASSN. —COPYRIGHT.] LONDON, October 26. The Soviet Government has sent a Note to Britain, declaring that the British contraband list violates the principles of international law, gravely impairs the interests of neutrals, and destroys international trade. The Soviet also raises in its note the question of the bombing of civilian population, as well as the overhauling of neutral ships. It is pointed out here that when the German Army bombed the civilian population in Poland in the most unrestrained manner, not the slightest objection of protest was raised by the Soviet.

RUSSIAN ARGUMENTS. MOSCOW, October 26. In. connection with the. Soviet’s note to Britain against her contraband list, Russia has refused to recognise the validity of British notes that were sent to Russia on September 6 and September 11, notifying Britain’s unilateral insinuation of British control over neutral merchantmen. The Soviet holds that their control violated the elementary principles of freedom for the mercantile marine, and does not conform to the International Declaration of 1909, or with, the decision of The Hague Tribunal in 1913. Soviet, ships, the note says, are State property, and should be exempt from any of the measures of compulsion that are applied to privatelyowned vessels. The Soviet reserves the right to clfiim compensation for losses caused by the British measures and actions.

“FANTASTIC” VIEWPOINT. LONDON, October 26. “Fantastic,” is how a high British authority on international law described the Soviet’s declaration. He emphasised that any belligerent can declare anything that he pleases to .be contraband, and especially anything useful to an enemy. BRITISH POLICY EXPLAINED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (Received October 27, 12.30 p.m.) RUGBY, October 26. The Soviet note regarding the British contraband list was only received in London officially to-day, and it is now being considered. In informed quarters, it is understood that it has been received at this stage with considerable surprise,, and it may be said that there is no> likelihood of the arguments it contains being admitted. The British contraband policy- and practice are fully in accordance with international law. Belligerents are entirely free to specify articles useful in the prosecution of the war which they will regard as contraband, and the classes of goods treated as conti aband in the British proclamation of September 3 correspond closely with those proclaimed to be contraband by

both sides in the last war, including the United States. For instance, fuel, one of the classes of goods to the inclusion of which exception is taken in the Soviet note, is an essential material in the conduct of modern war. while cotton, which is also mentioned, is widely used in the manufacture of explosives. Foodstuffs were also treated as conditional contraband, as long ago as the eighteenth century. In view of the fact that an appeal is made in the Soviet note to the 1909 declaration of London, it is recalled that, although that declaration was never fully ratified by any Ptwcr. an attempt to apply it was made by Britain in the early stages of the last war.; This attempt broke down, and inas-j much as it excluded from the list of contraband such articles as metallic ores and cotton,- the failure is not surprising. Regarding the practice followed by Britain in controlling trade in contraband, and of diverting ships to specified ports, this is' adopted owing to the proved impossibility of searching and examining cargoes of large ships carrying a varied assortment of genleral merchandise at sea. which was the older practice.