is whether, under the special circumstances of a condition § 394. There are many articles which are not by Articles their character destined to be made use of in war, ally Conbut are nevertheless of great value to belligerents traband. for the continuance of the war. Such articles are conditionally contraband, which means that they are contraband when it is clearly apparent that they are intended to be made use of for military or naval purposes. This intention becomes apparent on considering either the destination of the vessel carrying the articles concerned, or the consignee of the articles. If such destination is an enemy fleet, or an enemy port exclusively or mainly used for military or naval equipment, or if the consignee is a contractor for the enemy army and navy, it may justly be presumed that the goods are intended to be made use of for military or naval purposes. What articles belong to this class cannot be decisively laid down. At the outbreak of the RussoJapanese War, Russia made no distinction between absolute and conditional contraband, declaring all the articles concerned contraband outright. But on the pro tests of Great Britain and the Neither the practice of States nor the opinion of writers agrees upon the matter, and it is in especial controverted1 whether or not foodstuffs, horses and other beasts of burden, coal and other fuel, money and the like, and cotton can conditionally be declared contraband. (1) That foodstuffs cannot under ordinary circumstances be declared contraband there ought to be no doubt. There are even several writers who emphatically deny that foodstuffs can ever be conditional contraband. But the majority of writers admit that foodstuffs destined for the use of the enemy army or navy may be declared contraband. This is also the practice of Great Britain,3 the United States of America, and Japan. But France declared in 1885, during her hostilities against China, rice in general as contraband, on the ground of the importance of this article for the Chinese population. And Russia in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese war, declared rice and provisions in general as contraband; on the protest of Great Britain and the United States of America, however, she altered her decision and declared these articles conditional contraband only. (2) The importance of horses and other beasts of burden for cavalry, artillery, and military transport explains their frequently being declared as contraband by belligerents. No argument has any basis against their character as conditional contraband. But they are frequently declared absolute contraband, as, for instance, by article 36 of the United States Naval War Code. Russia, which during the Russo-Japanese War altered her standpoint taken 1 See Perels, § 45, and Hall, §§ 242-246, who give bird's-eye views of the controversy. 2 See, for instance, Bluntschli, § 807. The Jonge Margaretha, I Rob. 189. up at first, and recognised the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband, nevertheless maintained her declaration of horses and beasts of burden as absolute contraband. (3) Since men-of-war are nowadays steamers, the importance of coal, and eventually other fuel for steamers, for waging war on sea is obvious. For this reason, Great Britain has ever since 1854 maintained that coal, if destined for belligerent men-of-war or belligerent naval ports, is contraband. But in 1859 France and Italy did not take up the same standpoint. Russia, although in 1885 she declared that she would never consent to coal being regarded as contraband, declared in 1904 coal, naphtha, alcohol, and every other kind of fuel, absolute contraband. And she adhered to this standpoint, although she was made to recognise the distinction between absolute and conditional contraband. (4) As regards money, unwrought precious metals which may be coined into money, bonds and the like, the mere fact that a neutral is prohibited by his duty of impartiality from granting a loan to a belligerent ought to bring conviction that these articles are contraband if destined for the enemy State or its forces. However, the case seldom happens that these articles are brought by neutral vessels to belligerent ports, since under the modern conditions of trade belligerents can be supplied in other ways with the necessary funds. 1 (5) As regards raw cotton, it is asserted that in 1861, during the Civil War, the United States declared it absolute contraband under quite peculiar circumstances, since it took the place of money sent abroad 1 See Hall, § 246, p. 690, note 2; Taylor, § 662; Wharton, III. § 373. for the purpose of paying for vessels, arms, and ammunition. This assertion seems to be based on the following extract from a communication of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, to Mr. Muruaga on June 28, 1886, printed by Wharton, III. § 373, p. 438: "Cotton was useful as collateral security for loans negotiated abroad by the Confederate States Government, or, as in the present case, was sold by it for cash to meet current expenses, or to purchase arms and munitions of war. Its use for such purposes was publicly proclaimed by the Confederacy, and its sale interdicted except under regulations established by, or contract with, the Confederate Government. Cotton was thus officially classed among war supplies, and, as such, was liable to be destroyed when found by the Federal troops, or turned to any use which the exigencies of war might dictate. . . . Cotton, in fact, was to the Confederacy as much munitions of war as powder and ball, for it furnished the chief means of obtaining those indispensables of warfare. In International Law there could be no question as to the right of the Federal commanders to seize it as contraband of war, whether they found it on rebel territory or intercepted it on the way to the parties who were to furnish in return material aid in the form of the sinews of war-arms or general supplies." But this assertion that cotton was declared contraband during the American Civil War would seem to be erroneous. 1 Holland points out:-" It has, indeed, been alleged that cotton was declared to be 'contraband' by the United States in their Civil War. The Federal proclamations will, however, be See Professor Holland's letter, "Cotton as Contraband of War," in the Times" of July 2, 1905. searched in vain for anything of the kind. The mistake is due to an occasional loose employment of the term, as descriptive of articles found by an invader in an enemy's territory, which, although the property of private, and even neutral, individuals, happen to be so useful for the purposes of the war as to be justly confiscated. That this was so will appear from an attentive reading of the case of Mrs. Alexander's cotton, in 1861 (2 Wallace, 404), and of the arguments in the claim made by Messrs. Maza and Larrache against the United States in 1886 (Foreign Relations of United States, 1887).” Be that as it may, raw cotton cannot under ordinary circumstances be considered absolute contraband. For this reason Great Britain protested when Russia in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War, declared cotton in general as contraband. Russia altered her standpoint and declared cotton conditional contraband only.' Destina § 395. Whatever may be the nature of articles, Hostile they are never contraband unless they are destined tion for the use of a belligerent in war. Arms and essential to Contra ammunition destined for a neutral are as little con- band. traband as other goods with the same destination. As this hostile destination is essential even for articles which are obviously used in war, such hostile destination is all the more important for such articles of ancipitous use as are only conditionally contraband. Thus, for instance, provisions and coal are 1 According to British practice —see Holland, Prize Law, § 64— the list of conditional contraband comprises :-Provisions and liquors for the consumption of army and navy; money, telegraphic materials, such as wire, porous cups, platina, sulphuric acid, and zinc; materials for the construction of a railway, as iron |