The Taranaki Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1900. CONTRABAND OF WAR.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9946, 23 January 1900, Page 2

The Taranaki Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1900. CONTRABAND OF WAR.

Theiie is always a certain amount of doubt as to what is and is not contraband of war. As even those in authority are not always clear on the subject and make dangerous and costly mistakes, we cannot be surprised that the geuoral public are so ill-informed on the subject and so anxious to hear what really constitutes any article as "contraband of war." When nations nre at war anything carried by their ships to their own shores is "prima facie" contraband of war and, with the vessel carrying if, be6oines a lawful prize for the ships of the other contending power. But it is quite a different matter when vessels belonging to a neutral country carry articles for one of those engaged in war, as Buch vessels may carry goods without incurring the penalty of seizure and forfeiture, provided such articles are not actual munitions of war, or machinery or apparatus designed for the use of the beligerent power to whom they are consigned. It lias been laid down that articles of use or necessity msiy bo classed under three headings: — (1) Thing? useful in nar only, which are always contraband. (2) Things useful for peaceful purposes only; these are never contraband. (3) Things which aye useful both in peace and war, these may or may not bo contraband, according to the circumstances in each case. A writer in the Sydney Mail, dealing with this subject, says' — "In times past contraband has been defined and limited between States by treaty. In 1700 contraband was limited by the groat northern Powers to munitions of war and sulphur. In 1793 Denmaik declared horses and articles necessary for the construction and repair of vessels, with the exception of unwrought iron, beams, boards, and planks of deal and fir, to be contraband. In 1800 the Powers known as the second armed neutrality, limited contraband to cannons, mortars, firearms, pistols, bombs, grenades, bullet 3, balls, muskets, fireballs, matches, powder, saltpetre, sulphur, cuirasses, pikes, swords, belts, cartridge boxes, saddles, and bridles, save and except such as should be necessary tor tho defence of the ship. By a treaty made in 179-1 between the United States of America and Great Britain, naval stores weio included among contraband articles, it being further provided that if provis.ons and nrticlcs not generally contraband were seized thoy should not be confiscated, but that tho owner Bhould bo indemnified. So far as can bo ascorlaiued by the writer, there aro no treaties at present in force to which Groat Britain is a party in which contraband of war is defined or limited." From tho above it is clear that food is not contraband of war whon carried in neutral ships, and this is borno out by tho fact that the cargoes of .flour on board Amorican and German inorchant vessels seized by British warships off tho coast of Portuguese East Africa, although intended for the Transvaal Government, havo had to be iolensed, and the owners of both veesols and flour compensated for losses incurred by them by tho detention. "Detention of provisions," saya Mr Hall in his classical treatiso on international law, "is almost always unjustifiable, simply because no certainty can be arrived at as to tho ÜBe which will be made of them ; so soon as oertainty is in fact established, they and everything else which directly and lo an important degree contribute to make an armed force mobile, become liable to seizure. They aro not less noxious than anna; but, except in a particular juncturo of circumstances, their noxiousness cannot bo proved." As the flour seized by tho British warships off Lorenzo Marquez (Delagoa Bay) was in all probability intended to bo sent by rail from that port to the Transvaal for the use of tho Boor forces, it is c. nice point of international law whether Britain was justified in dotaining it or not. The British authorities, however, seem to havo preferred giving it up to enforcing their rights to seizo it, as to persist in keeping it would undoubtedly have led to serious complications with the United States and other Powers interested in the ownership of tho vessels and their cargoes, who protested against such action being permitted. The article from which we quote concludes by saying: — "The penalty under the law of nations for carrying contraband articles is confiscation of the ship, though in later times this practice has been relaxed. When the owners of the contraband cargo and tho ship aro different persons the ship is allowed to go free, subject to the forfeiture of freight and to expenses on the part of the neutral owner. This relaxation does not apply to cases attended with aggravating circumstances, such as opposition or hindrance placed i in tho way of tho searclitng vessel, the sailing under falso papers, concealment, c{;c. Every article of contraband is sub- j ject to eonfiscajign. If, however, tho i arliclo is only conditionally contraband it is subject to pre-emption only, which by tho English practice means purchaso of tho merchandise at its mercantile value, together with a reasonable profit, usually calculated at 10 per cent on tho amount. This mitigation of extremo belligerent privilego is also introduced in tho case of products native to the exporting country, even when thoy aro affected by an inseparable taint of contraband. On capture, the vessel should bo taken to tho nearest Prize Court for adjudication upon." It will be seen by the abovo extracts that the subject is one of extreme difficulty at times like the present, and that p, mistake on the part of tho British naval authorities in seizing or detaining neutral vessels Tarrying food stuffs to a neutral port may end in serious complications.