Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/807

 Rh

articles enter into general consumption in the arts of peace, to which they are vitally necessary. They are usually treated, not as "absolutely contraband of war," like articles that are intended primarily for military pur poses in time of war, such as ordnance, arms, ammunition, etc., but rather as "con ditional contraband," that is to say, articles that may be used for or converted to the purposes of war or peace, according to cir cumstances. They may be rather classed with provisions and foodstuffs of ordinarily innocent use, but which may become abso lutely contraband of war when actually and especially destined for the military or naval forces of the enemy. In the war between the United States and Spain the Navy Department General Orders No. 492, issued June 20, 1898, de clared, in Article 19, as follows: "The term contraband of war comprehends only arti cles having a belligerent destination." Among articles absolutely contraband it de clared ordnance, machine guns and other articles of military or naval warfare. It de clared as conditional contraband "coal, when destined for a naval station, a port of call or a ship or ships of the enemy." It likewise declared provisions to be condi tionally contraband "when destined for the enemy's ship or ships, for a place that is be sieged.'' The above rules as to articles absolutely or conditionally contraband of war were adopted in the naval war code, promulgated by the Navy Department June 27, 1900. While it appears that the document men tioned that rice, foodstuffs, horses, beasts of burden, and other animals which may be used in time of war are declared to be con traband of war only when they are trans ported for account of or destined to the enemy, yet all kinds of fuel, such as coal, naphtha, alcohol, are classified along with arms, ammunition and other articles in tended for warfare on land or sea.

The test in determining whether articles ancipitis usus are contraband of war is their destination for military uses of a belligerent. Mr. Dana, in his notes to Wheaton's "In ternational Law," says: "The chief circumstance of inquiry, would naturally be the port of destination. If that is a naval arsenal, or a port in which vessels of war are usually fitted out, or in which a fleet is lying, or a garrison town, or a place from which a military expedition is fitted out—the presumption of military use would be raised, more or less strongly, according to circumstances." In the wars of 1859 and 1870 coal was de clared by France not to be contraband. During the latter war Great Britain held that the character of coal depended upon its destination, and refused to permit vessels to sail with it to the Spanish fleet in the North Sea. Where coal or other fuel is shipped to a port of a belligerent, with no presumption against its specific use, to condemn it as ab solutely contraband would seem to be an ex treme measure. Mr. Hall, "International Law," says: "•During the West African conference i:i 1884 Russia took occasion to dissent vigor ously from the inclusion of coal among art eles contraband of war, and declared that she would categorically refuse her consent to any articles in any treaty, convention or in strument whatever, which would imply its recognition as such.'' We are also informed that it is intended to treat raw cotton as a contraband of war. While it is true raw cotton could be made into clothing for the military uses of a bel ligerent, a military use for the supply of the army or garrison might possibly be made oi foodstuffs of every description which might be shipped from neutral ports to the nonblockaded ports of a belligerent. The princi ple under consideration might, therefore. be extended so as to apply to every article