OUTLINE OF CHAPTER XXIV NEUTRAL RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES AND INDIVIDUALS 132. ORDINARY COMMERCE IN TIME OF WAR. 133. (a) Destination of the vessel. (b) Ownership of goods. (c) Nationality of the vessel. (1) Instances of the variety of practice since 1778. (d) Principles of the Declaration of Paris in regard to the flag and goods. CONTRABAND. (a) History of the principle of contraband. (1) Attitude of the United States. (2) Range of articles classed as contraband. (b) Declaration of London, 1909, in regard to articles treated as contraband. 134. PENALTY FOR CARRYING CONTRABAND. (a) Hostile destination renders goods liable to penalty. (b) Provision of Declaration of London. (c) Practice of preemption. (d) When contraband is only part of the cargo. 135. UNNEUTRAL SERVICE. (a) Participation in the hostilities. (b) Transmission of intelligence in the interest of the enemy. (c) The carriage of certain belligerent persons. (d) Auxiliary coal, repair, supply, or transport ships. 136. VISIT, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE. (a) The right of visiting and searching merchant ships upon the seas. (b) The object of the right of search. (c) The method of conducting the search. (d) Ship's papers as evidence of the character of the vessel. (e) Grounds of seizure. (f) Procedure in regard to neutral vessel and property in case of seizure. (g) Exemptions from capture as provided by the Hague Convention (h) Destruction of neutral prizes generally forbidden. 137. CONVOY. (a) Differences in practice in regard to convoy. 138. BLOCKADE. (a) History of the practice of blockade. (b) Conditions of existence of a blockade. (c) Blockade a war measure. (d) Declaration of a blockade. (e) Notification of the existence of a blockade. (f) A blockade must be effective. (g) Cessation of a blockade. 139. VIOLATION OF BLOCKADE. 140. CONTINUOUS VOYAGES. (a) History of the principle. (1) Case of the Bermuda. (2) Case of the Stephen Hart. (3) Position of the United States. (b) Rules of the Declaration of London, 1909. 141. PRIZE AND PRIZE COURTS. (a) Prize the general term applied to captures made at sea. (b) The National Prize Court. (1) Where the prize court may sit. (2) Methods of procedure of prize courts. (c) Prize money and its distribution. (d) The International Prize Court. CHAPTER XXIV NEUTRAL RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES AND INDIVIDUALS 132. Ordinary Commerce in Time of War As a general principle, subjects of a neutral state may carry on commerce in the time of war as in the time of peace. At the same time, owing to the fact of war, a belligerent has the right to take measures to reduce his opponent to subjection. The general right of the neutral and the special right of the belligerent come into opposition. The problem becomes one of "taking into consideration the respective rights of the belligerents and of the neutrals; rights of the belligerents to place their opponent beyond the power of resistance, but respecting the liberty and independence of the neutral in doing this; rights of the neutrals to maintain with each of the belligerents free commercial relations, without injury to the opponent of either." 1 In regard to commerce in the time of war, the matters of destination, ownership of goods, and the nationality of the vessel have been the facts ordinarily determining the treatment by the belligerent. If there is nothing hostile in the destination of the commercial undertaking, in the nature of the goods, or in the means of transport, the commerce is free from interruption by the belligerent. 1 Bonfils, "Droit Int. Public," § 1494 ff.; Despagnet, "Droit Int. Public," 682 ff.; Investigation Chalmette Supply Camp, House Doc. 568, 57th Cong. U. S., 1902. (a) The questions arising in regard to destination will naturally be treated under the subjects of contraband, blockade and continuous voyage. Destination. (b) The ownership of goods has usually been a fact determining their liability to capture. Ownership of goods. The rules of the Consolato del Mare, compiled in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, looked to the protection of the neutral vessel and the neutral goods on the one hand, and to the seizure of the enemy vessel and of the enemy goods on the other hand. The goods of an enemy could be seized under a neutral flag, and the goods of a neutral were free even though under an enemy flag. This doctrine considered mainly the character of the goods. These rules were held in favor till the sixteenth century, from which time the practice varied greatly, sometimes being regulated by treaty. In the sixteenth century France advanced the doctrine of hostile contagion, maintaining the principle of "enemy ships, enemy goods," and "enemy goods, enemy ships." The practice of states was far from uniform in the various wars. 1 (c) The nationality of the vessel has been sometimes regarded as the sole fact determining liability Nationality of of goods to capture, and at other times affecting only the vessel itself. the vessel. Under the rules of the Consolato, the flag determined the liability of the vessel only. Under the French ordinances, the flag contaminated the goods. From 1778, the doctrine that the neutral flag covered enemy goods became more commonly accepted. This was especially emphasized by the armed neutrality of 1780. Some of the agreements of the United States will show the variety of practice even in recent times. By Art. XXIII of the Treaty of 1778 with France it is provided, “that free 1 Walker, "Science of Int. Law," p. 296. Instances of practice since 1778. ships shall also give a freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the confederates, although the whole lading or any part thereof should appertain to the enemies of either, contraband goods being always excepted." In the Treaty of 1785 with Prussia occurs the following: "Free vessels making free goods, insomuch that all things shall be adjudged free which shall be on board any vessel belonging to the neutral party, although such things belong to an enemy of the other." In the Treaty of 1795 with Spain is a similar provision, excepting, however, contraband of war. It is asserted in the Treaty of 1799 with Prussia that as the doctrine of "free ships make free goods" has not been respected "during the two last wars," and in the one "which still continues," the contracting parties propose "after the return of a general peace" to confer with other nations and meantime to observe "the principles and rules of the law of nations generally acknowledged." The Treaty of 1819 with Spain interprets the clause of the Treaty of 1795, in which it is stipulated that the flag shall cover the property, by saying, "that this shall be so understood with respect to those Powers who recognize this principle; but if either of the two contracting parties shall be at war with a third party, and the other neutral, the flag of the neutral shall cover the property of enemies whose Government acknowledges this principle, and not of others." The Treaty of 1794 with Great Britain expressly provides that property of an enemy on a neutral vessel shall be good prize. In 1887 it was agreed in the treaty with Peru "that the stipulation in this article declaring that the flag shall cover the property shall be understood as applying to those nations only who recognize this principle; but if either of the contracting parties shall be at war with a third, and the other shall remain neu |