Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/461

 Rh

412 CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of THE GREEN BAG : Sir:—Does International Law permit neu tral nations to supply coal to Japan or Rus sia? Is coal contraband? Although the introduction of the use of coal into ships of war began early in the last century, the Crimean war was the first mari time struggle of importance in which such vessels were propelled by steam power. Con fronted by new conditions, Great Britain, af ter stopping coal on the way to a Russian port, applied to that commodity the doctrine of conditional contraband, claiming that it was an article which was employed in a double capacity. When the question arose again in 1859, in the war between Austria and France, the British foreign office warned British merchants that "it appears to Her Majesty's government that, having regard to the present state of naval armaments, coal may, in many cases, be rightly held to be contraband of war, and, therefore, that all who engage in the traffic must do so at a risk from which Her Majesty's government cannot relieve them." Mr. Lewis Cass, United States Secretary of State, writing in 1859, said on the ques tion whether coal was contraband: "The at tempts to enable belligerent nations to pre vent all trade in this most valuable accessory to mechanical power have no just claim for support in the law of nations; and the United States avow their determination to oppose them, so far as their vessels are concerned.'' Again, in 1885, Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, wrote: "It is also to be observed that the fact that certain articles of commerce are contraband does not make it a breach of neu trality to export them. There has not been since the organization of our government a European war in which, in full accordance with the rules of International Law, as ac cepted by the United States, munitions of war have not been sent by American citizens to one or both of the belligerents; yet it has never been doubted that the munitions of war, if seized by the belligerent against whom they were to be used, could have been

condemned as contraband. The question, then, is whether furnishing to belligerents coal and life-shells, which appear to have composed the cargo of the British vessels which gave rise to this correspondence, is a breach of neutrality, which the law of nations forbids. The question must be answered in the negative as to coal, and the same con clusion must be adopted with regard to lifeshells, which are said to be projectiles used in the bringing to shore or rescue of wrecks. Under these circumstances, it is not per ceived why in the present case the United States authorities should intervene to pre vent such supply from being forwarded to the open ports of either belligerent. Even sup posing such articles to be contraband of war, and consequently liable to be seized and con fiscated by the offended belligerent, it is no breach of neutrality for a neutral to forward them to such belligerent ports, subject, of course, to such risks. When, however, such articles are forwarded directly to vessels of war in belligenert service, another question arises. Provisions and munitions of war sent to belligerent cruisers are unquestionably contraband of war. Whether, however, it is a breach of neutrality by the law of nations to forward them directly to belligerent cruisers, depends so much upon extraneous circumstances, that the question can only be properly decided when these circumstances are presented in detail." When the British neutrality proclamation, issued upon the outbreak of the War of the Rebellion, came up for discussion in the British House of Lords, the Foreign Secre tary (Lord Granville), after referring to arti cles clearly contraband, said : "There are cer tain other articles, the character of %vhich, can be determined only by the circumstances of the case"—a remark which seems to have been made more definite by Lord Brougham that coal might be contraband "if furnished to one belligerent to be used in warfare against the other," and by a still more precise statement by Lord Kingsdown, better known as Thomas Pemberton-Leigh, that "if coals are sent to a port where there are war steam