ther the Transvaal nor the Orange Free State possessed a seaport. Lorenzo Marqu

res, however, were taken to prevent the smuggling of contraband through Delagoa Bay, a transaction which the English alleged was an everyday occurrence. A number of neutral merchantmen bound for this port were seized, but the difficult

s, Royal Commission on the War in South Africa, Appe

It was found, however, that the gold was consigned to the Delagoa branch of the Transvaal Bank from the Durban branch of the same institution. The allegation against the consignment, it was considered by the prize court, did not sufficiently contaminate the shipment

gnize the signal to halt seventy miles out from Lorenzo Marques and was brought to by a blank shot. Her papers, howe

erely the manifests in order to furnish evidence which would warrant the confiscation of the goods and possibly the ships carrying contraband, should such be found on board. The Council of the British and Foreign Arbitration Association sent a resolution to the English Government and to that of Portugal which declared: "This association

es, Weekly Ed., Dec. 29

rol outside the three mile limit, but the detection of forbidden forms of commerce was practically impossible. Undoubtedly not only food but munitions of war as well were brought in concealed in the holds of merchantmen and by other devices. To examine the ships properly at sea it was estimated would have required three weeks or more, and it was declared that such an examination alone could have insured Great Britain in her rights, since the

ere involved. The points in the British position which were most violently attacked were the classification of foodstuffs as contraband in certain cases, and the application which was made of

rally admitted that under certain conditions such goods may be so considered. On the other hand doubt is expressed by many writers upon inte

or manufacturing arms, ammunition and any materials which are of direct application in naval or military armaments; second,

ays arise as to what articles, though not necessarily of direct applicability to hostile uses, may nevertheless be considered contraband of wa

d to a belligerent by stages were goods which, except under unusual circumstances, have generally been held to be free from the taint of contraband character. Great Britain has held that provisions and liquors fit for t

Manual of Naval Priz

of judging of the French declaration and its value as a precedent. But the majority of the authorities upon the principles of international law admit that foodstuffs which are destined for the use of the enemy's army or navy may be declared contraband in character. The practice of the United States, of Great Britain and of Japan has been to follow this rule. Russia in 1904 declared rice and provisions in ge

en at war with the United States.[4] In this case, however, the conclusive presumption was that the character of the goods themselves left no doubt possible as to their ultimate destination. The guilt of the vessel was not based upon the ground of carrying contraband but upon a presumption that the blockade established over the Southern States was to have been broken. Both the ship and its cargo were condemned by the district court of southern New York, but the cargo alone was later considered liable to condemnation by the Supreme Court of the United States. Great Britain at the time noted an exception to the decision, but refused to take up claims on the part of the English owners against the United States Government fo

e respecting the Seizure of the British Vessels "Springbok" and "Pet

al Papers of the Hou

er blockade."[6] In other words, the decision was upon presumption and not upon the evidence in the case; upon the presumption that a breach of blockade was premeditated and not upon the ground that the cargo was contraband. The fact that the cargo was of a character which did not seem likely to be incorporated into the stock in trade of the Nassau population gave the judges whatever justification there was for the presumption that the goods were intended to be transshipped without breaking bulk. A recent English writer, Mr. Atherley-Jones, who criticises this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as a verdict based upon the principle of the expediency of the moment and not upon the usual rules of evidence, admits that if a vessel sails with the intention of violating a bl

6: Op. cit

mmerce in War (

fication would not be acceptable to other Powers generally nor to the United States when the doctrine of "continuous voyages" was given such an application as practically to include foodstuffs as contraband. Without the taint of contraband there could be no justification even upon

carried with it the further presumption that the ultimate intention was that

ly well-grounded suspicions for facts no more acceptable to third Powers than the assumption with regard to foodstuffs had been, if the emphatic statem

BUNDESRATH, HER

e hundred miles from Lorenzo Marques, under the escort of the British cruiser Magicienne. The German Government demanded the immediate release of the steamer upon the assurance made by the Hamburg owners that she carried no contraband. Great indignation was expressed in Hamburg, and a demand was made in the Chamber of Commerce that measures be taken to insure the protection of German commercial interests. A diplomatic note was sent by Germany protesting against the action of England. Lord Salisbury's reply on the part of his Government was that the Bundesrath was suspected of carrying ammunition in her cargo, and that

e respecting the Action of Her Majesty's Naval Authorities with refe

9: Ibid.

small trucks consigned to the same place. It was expected that a further search would reveal arms among the baggage of the Germans on board who admitted that they were going to the Transvaal. England's senior naval officer at Durban was of the opinion th

prize court should take over the ship and a search be at once made by competent authorities. Orders were given at the same time, however, that

10: Ibid

be hastened to their destination, "either by an English cruiser if available, or by a mail steamer, or otherwise."[11] It was pointed out that the ship and its cargo, including the mails, were in the custody of th

5-6; Chamberlain to Hely-

there been contraband disclosed even this fact would not have given England any right to interfere with neutral commerce from one neutral port to another and insisted that the task of preventing the transmission of contraband to the Transvaal lay with the Portuguese Government.[12] The fact was also po

p. 7; Lascelles to Sa

was a neutral port."[13] The novel suggestion was made by Germany that "the mail steamer be allowed to go on bail so as not to interfere more than was necessary with her voyage," but the English representative doubted the practicabi

p. 7; Salisbury to La

an warship, Condor, for Delagoa Bay. But not until two weeks later were the ship and its cargo released.[14] T

2; Hely-Hutchinson to Cha

etails, were similar in regard to the points of law involved, the facts in the remaining cases will be outlined. It will then be possible to

an inquiry was made by the commander at the Cape whether "a number of passengers dressed in khaki" could be "legally removed" from the Herzog.[15] On the twenty-first the senior naval officer at Aden reported that the Herzog had sailed on the eighteenth for Delagoa Bay conveying, "probably for service in the Transvaal, about forty Dutch and German medical and other

1; Admiralty to Foreign

6: Ibid., p

traband goods on board; that the only suspected articles were the mails, and certain small iron rails and railway sleepers which were destined for the neutral port of Delagoa Bay. On board the Herzog, however, there were three Red Cross expeditions, one of which had n

17: Ibid

e discontinued and the ship released unless "provisions on board are destined for the enemy's Government or agents, and are also for the supply of troops or are especially adapted for use as rations for troo

8: Ibid., p

usque terms "that orders be given for the immediate release of the steamer and her cargo, for that portion of her cargo which has already been landed to be taken on board again, and for no hindrances to be placed in the way of the ship continuing her voyage to the places mentioned in her itinerary." Count Hatzfelt, the German repr

19: Ibid

20: Ibid

were on board for Delagoa Bay, including boxes of ammunition stowed in the main hold, buried under reserve coal. An inspection of the manifest had shown several cases of rifle ammunition for Mauser, Mannlicher and sporting rifles consigned to Mombasa, but this consignment was believed to be bona fide. Other suspected articles on the manifest were wagon axles and chemicals and at the bottom of the hold was a consignment of food for Delagoa Bay, with boilers and heavy machinery stowed on top of the reserve coa

d., p. 22; see al

s done as quickly as possible. The crew of the English ship Marathon, assisted by one hundred coolies, having worked day and night after the

ASPECTS OF

the three German ships, the assertions made by the British and German Governments brought out the

hat proceedings before a Prize Court were not justified."[22] This view of the case, he declared, was based on the consideration that "proceedings before a Prize Court are only justified where the presence of contraband of war is prove

l Papers, Africa, No.

Salisbury, J

in the Manual of Naval Prize Law published by the English Admiralty in 1866, three years after the original protest. The passage cited from the manual read: "A vessel's destination should be considered neutral, if both the port to which she is bound and every intermediate port at which she is to call in the course of her voyage be neutral," and "the destination of the vessel is conclusive as to the destination of the good

er of the cargo as tending to show that it could be intended only for the forces of the Southern Confederacy, led to the conclusion that a breach of blockade was premeditated. This presumption no doubt was correct and in this particular case the decision of the court was probably justified, but the course of reasonin

l Papers, Africa, No.

Salisbury,

not appear to be any justification for the seizure of the vessel and her cargo, that the supposed reason, namely, that there were articles in the manifest not accounted for by the captain, certainly did not warrant the seizure, more especially as the destination of the vessel appeared to have been bona fide neutral, but that, inasmuch as it was probable that the vessel had by that time been carried before a Prize Court of the United States for adjudication, and that the adjudication might shortly follow, if it had not already taken place, the only instruction that he could at present give to Lord Lyons was

. 18; Salisbury to Las

time) in which the same parties were concerned," had convinced his Government that the decision was justifiable under the circumstances.[26] The fact was pointed out that the evidence had gone "so far to establish that the cargo of the Springbok, containing a considerable portion of contraband, was never really and bona fide destined for Nassau, but was either destined merely to call there or to be immediately transhipped after its arrival there without breaking bulk and without any previous incorporation in

Papers, Miscl., No. I

Lyons, Feb.

: Ibid. Ital

nd every intermediate port at which she is to call in the course of her voyage be neutral." And again, "The destination is conclusive as to the destination of the goods on board." Count Hatzfeldt contended that upon this principle, admitted by Great Brita

l Papers, Africa, No.

ch would ultimately have to be settled by English prize courts. The assertion was then made that while the directions of the manual were sufficient for practical purposes in the case of wars such as had been waged by Great Britain in the past, they were quite inapplicable to the case which had arisen of war with an inland State whose only communication with the sea was over a few miles of railway to a neutral port. The opini

. 18-19. Salisbury to L

ment upon this authority, he insisted that his Government could not admit that there was sufficient reason for ordering the release of the Bundesrath "without examination by the Prize Court as to whether she was carrying contraband of war belonging to, or destined for, the South African Republic." It was admitted, however, that the British Government fully recognized how desira

ch translation by Lardy, 1880, 3d Ed., § 813. One of the two cases cited in support of this opinion is that of the Springbok, but in §835, Rem. 5, the following statement is made: "Une théorie fort dangereuse a été formulé par l

l Papers, Africa, No.

Lascelles, Ja

fficulty might be avoided by an agreement upon a parallel of latitude down to which all ships should be exempt from search. And although it was not found possible to reach an exact agreement upon this point, orders were issued by Great Britain that the right of search should not in future be exercised at Aden or at any place at an equal distance from the

32: Ibid.,

863, namely, that a continuous voyage may be presumed from an intended ultimate hostile destination in the case of a breach of blockade, the contraband character of the goods only tending to show the ultimate hostile intention of the ship. But the English contention went further than this and attempted to apply the doctrine to co

t be arranged by other methods. (2) Instructions were issued that vessels should not be stopped and searched at Aden or at any point equally or more distant from the seat of war. (3) It was agreed provisionally, till another arrangement should be reached, that German mail steamers should not be searched in f

hich guarantees the greatest security to commerce and industry, and which finds expression in the principle that for ships consigned from neutral states to a neutral port, the notion of contraband of war simply does not exist. To this the English Government demurred. We have reserved to ourselves th

frica, No. I (1900), C 33; p. 25,

e duties imposed by a state of war upon the ship owners, merchants, and vessels of a neutral state, but we require of the belligerents that they shall not extend the powers they possess in this respect beyond the strict necessities of war. We demand of the belligerents that they shall respect the inalienable rights of legiti

34: Ibid

ure" was "consigned or intended to be delivered to an agent of the enemy at a neutral port, or, in fact, destined for the enemy's country," is liable to seizure and that both ship and cargo may be confiscated.[35] It also denie

. 19; Salisbury to Las

p. 16; Admiralty to H

issuing instructions to the British Naval Commanders to molest no German merchantmen in places not in the vicinity of the seat of war, or at any rate, in places north of Aden.... Fourthly, we stated it to be highly desirable that the English Government should instruct their Commanders not to arrest steamers flying the German mail flag.... Fifthly, we proposed that all poi

eech in Reichsta

e system of law to be operative in practice, a disregard of which in the opinion of

s of the belligerent parties." It was pointed out that this was apart from the right of convoy, a question which did not arise in the cases under discu

cised with as much consideration as p

first acts may be undertaken at any time, and without preliminary proceeding. If the neutral vessel resists the order to stop, or if irregularities are discovered in her papers, or

rticles to be included in this definition," it was intimated, "is a matter of dispute, and with the exception of arms and ammunition, is determined, as a rule, with reference to the special

scation; whether with or without compensation

belligerent state is bound to order the immediate rele

g on the high seas of the three German steamers or to protest against the examination of their papers. But by the same standard, it was contended that the act of seizing and conveying to Durban the

as generally considered an innovation. As applied, or attempted to be applied, by Great Britain in 1900 to trade between neutral ports at a time when no blockade existed or was in fact possible,

He declares that if this doctrine were accepted the offense of carrying contraband "might be expunged from the international code;" that "nothing would be easier for neutrals than to supply a belligerent with all he needed for the prosecution of his war."[38] He points out the danger of the acceptance on the part of the Powers of such a doctrine by citing the hypothetical case of France engaged in war, and ass

ciples of Int. Law

ports would not be liable to interference," the inference is not a necessary result of the German position. Nor does it necessarily follow according to the German standard that, "to constitute the offense of carrying contraband a belligerent destination" is "essential, and therefore there" can "be no contraband when the voyage" is "from neutral port to neutral port,"[39] Mr. Lawrence possibly has reference only to the position taken arguendo by

rinciples of In

ression in the past, notably in 1863, and expressly in her own nava

in opposing the proposed German system, when he says, "Great Britain is the only European state which could not obtain," in time of war, "all the supplies she wished for by land carriage fr

rinciples of In

be included, provided they were at the same time destined for the use of one of the belligerents, and he was ready to admit that discovered contraband should be confiscable. It is true the caution was added that should the seizure prove to be unjustifiable the belligerent State should be bound to order immediate release and make full compensation, and that the right of visit and search should be exercised with as muc

l Papers, Africa, No.

ichstag, Jan

orces of the Southern Confederacy across the Rio Grande River. To these belligerent forces it was presumed the goods were to be conveyed as the final stage of their voyage, but the decision of the court was distinctly upon the guilt of a breach of blockade.[43] The character of the goods did not give just ground for seizure provided they were intended in good faith for a neutral market, but the character of the goods showed that they were not so intended, and the simulated papers of the ship substantiated this suspicion

l Papers, Miscl., No.

ized right of visit and search. The attempt was not made to lay down a new system of principles which would render the carrying of contraband by neutrals unhampered by the belligerents, for Count Von Bülow in setting forth the tentative system which in the opinion of his Government would protect neutral commerce in time of war laid stress upon the fact that there are as yet no

ncellor intimated that his Government would support any plan of the kind for more clearly defining the disputed points of maritime law. The fact was pointed out that maritime law is still in a "liquid, elastic, and imperfect state," that w

l which carries them is bound to a neutral port. But it was considered necessary to add the caution that "evident and incontestable proof" must make clear th

rd what have been called "analogues" of contraband. The point was emphasized indeed that while special consideration would be shown to all German mail steamers, not every steamer which "carried a bag of letters" could claim this partial immunity. The English representative said: "We understand by mail steamers, steamers of subsidized lines, and consequ

l Papers, Africa, No.

Lascelles, Ja

ent, nor carry enemy's despatches, nor transport certain classes of persons in the service of a belligerent. But mail steamers may carry persons who pay for their passage in the usual way and come on board as ordinary passengers, even though they turn out to be officers of one or the other of the belligerents. Although the tendency of modern times to exempt mail ships from vi

International Law, Da

nt a kind as to involve the confiscation of the vessel concerned, a penalty which under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed upon the carriage of contraband property so called."[46] Under this head if would seem the alleged offense of the ship Bundesrath may properly be classed, and charges of a similar character were made against the ships General and Herzog

ge, 1900, p. 98. Also Arguments of Lord Stowell in the case

h authority upon international law with reference to the seizure of the ship Gaelic by the Japanese Government during the Chino-Japanese War. The Gaelic, a British mail steamer, was bound from the neutral port of San Fran

ested, and this protest is especially significant in view of the English contention in the cases of the German mail steamers. The protest against the further detention and search of the Gaelic was made on the ground that the ship did not have a hostile destination, Sagasaki, a port in Japanese territory, bei

War, pp. xvii-xxvii. Note on Continuous Voyages and Contra

ite of the position taken in the seizures of ships bound for Delagoa Bay in Portuguese territory. Japan on the other hand maintained that the proceedings were entirely correct on the ground: (1) of the probability that the Gaelic might call at Amoy; (2) that the doctrine of continuous

offer them for sale there, and in either case what further becomes of them will depend on the consignee purchasers or on the purchasers from the agents. He contends that "such goods before arriving at the neutral port have only a neutral destination; on arriving there they are imported into the stock of the country, and if they ultim

L.Q. Rev., V

ors of the goods may have had an expectation that they would reach the belligerent but not an intention to that effect, for a person can form an intention only about his own acts and a belligerent destination was to be impressed on t

R., Vol. 15, p. 25

by a further voyage of the same ship or by transshipment, or even by land carriage. He shows that such goods are to reach the belligerent "without the intervention of a new commercial transaction in pursuance of the intention formed with regard to them by the persons who are their owners during the voyage to the neutral port. Therefore even during that voyage they have a belligerent destination, although the ship which carries them may have a neutral one."[50] In such a case, he decla

50: Ibid

: L.Q.R., Vo

tination of the ship as well as of the goods being a belligerent one."[52] But if the doctrine of continuous voyages is denied it may also be questioned "that a further intended carriage by transshipment or by land can be united with the voyage to the neutral port

52: Ibid

53: Ibid

e to proceed to a belligerent port, there is no closer connection between the two parts of his journey than that he should hold a through ticket to the belligerent port." It is pointed out that the distinction between a person when considered as contraband and goods or despatches is that "the person cannot be forwarded like a thing."

bid., p. 29. It

urney inevitably remains contingent and which is therefore analogous to the new determination which may be given in the neutral port as to the employment of goods which have found a market there." Consequently he says: "The doctrine of continuous voyages cannot be applied to the carriage of pers

55: L.Q.

was justifiable as an exercise of the police p

East African Line owning the Bundesrath, Herzog and General, ￡20,000 sterling, together with an additional sum of ￡5,000 as compensation to the consignees. For the detention of the ship Hans Wagner, a German sailing boat which had been arrested on February 6, 1900, the sum of ￡4,437 sterling was paid. The

any. The East African Line congratulated Count Von Bülow upon the energetic manner in which he had handled the incidents. German commercial interests considered that they might count upon the eff