adopted the American application of the doctrine of continuous voyages to contraband, and thereby recognised the possibility of circuitous as well as indirect carriage of contraband. And it must be mentioned that the attitude of several Continental States is in favour of the American practice. Thus, according to §§ 4 and 6 of the Prussian Regulations of 1864 regarding Naval Prizes, it is the hostile destination of the goods or the destination of the vessel to an enemy port which makes a vessel appear as carrying contraband and which justifies her seizure. In Sweden the same is valid.1 Thus, further, an Italian Prize Court during the war with Abyssinia in 1896 justified the seizure in the Red Sea of the Dutch vessel "Doelwijk," 2 which sailed for the neutral French port of Djibouti, carrying a cargo of arms and ammunition destined for the Abyssinian army and to be transported to Abyssinia after having been landed at Djibouti. Capture for Carriage of Contraband. III CONSEQUENCES OF CARRIAGE OF CONTRABAND See the literature quoted above at the commencement of § 391. § 404. It is universally recognised by theory and practice that a vessel carrying contraband may be seized by the cruisers of the belligerent concerned. But seizure is allowed only as long as a vessel is in delicto, which commences when she leaves the port of starting and ends when she has deposited the contraband goods, whether with the enemy or otherwise. 1 See Kleen, I. p. 389, note 2. ser., XXVIII. p. 66. See also below, § 438. The rule is, therefore, generally recognised that a vessel which has deposited her contraband cannot be seized on her return voyage. British and American practice admits, however, one exception to this rule-namely, in the case in which a vessel has carried contraband on her outward voyage with simulated and false papers.1 But no exception is admitted by the practice of other countries. Thus, when in 1879, during war between Peru and Chile, the German vessel "Luxor," after having carried a cargo of arms and ammunition from Monte Video to Valparaiso, was seized in the harbour of Callao, in Peru, and condemned for carrying contraband by the Peruvian Prize Courts, Germany interfered and succeeded in getting the vessel released. It must be emphasised that seizure for carriage of contraband is only admissible on the Open Sea and in the maritime territorial belt of both belligerents. Seizure within the maritime belt of neutrals would be a violation of neutrality. riage of band. § 405. Neither in theory nor in practice are rules Penalty of the same contents recognised with regard to the for Car penalty of carriage of contraband. In former times Contrathe penalty was frequently confiscation not only of the contraband cargo itself, but also of all other parts of the cargo, together with the vessel. Only France made an exception, since according to an ordonnance of 1584 she did not even confiscate the contraband goods themselves, but only seized them against payment of their value, and it was not until 1681 that an ordonnance proclaimed confiscation of contraband, but with exclusion of the vessel and the innocent part of the cargo.1 During the seventeenth century this distinction between contraband on the one hand, and, on the other, the innocent goods and the vessel was clearly recognised by Zouche and Bynkershoek, and confiscation of the contraband only became more and more the rule, certain cases excepted. During the eighteenth century the right to confiscate contraband was frequently contested, and it is remarkable for the change of the attitude of some States that by Article 13 of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce 2 concluded in 1785 between Prussia and the United States of America all confiscation was abolished. This article provided that the belligerent should have the right to stop vessels carrying contraband and to detain them for such length of time as might be necessary to prevent possible damage by them, but such detained vessels should be paid compensation for the arrest imposed upon them. It further provided that the belligerent could seize all contraband against payment of its full value, and that, if the captain of a vessel stopped for carrying contraband should deliver up all contraband, the vessel should at once be set free. I doubt whether any other treaty of the same kind was entered into by either Prussia or the United States.3 1 See Wheaton, Histoire des Progrès du Droit des gens en Europe (1841), p. 82. 2 Martens, R.I., IV. 42. The stipulation was renewed by article 12 of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the two States concluded in 1828; Martens, N.R., VII. 619. Article 12 of the Treaty of Commerce, between the United States of America and Italy, signed at Florence on February 26, 1871-see Martens, N.R.G., 2nd ser. I. p. 57-stipulates immunity from seizure of such private property only as does not consist of contraband: "The high contracting parties agree that, in the unfortunate event of war between them, the private property of their respective citizens and subjects, with the exception of contraband of war, shall be exempt from capture or seizure, on the high seas or elsewhere, by And it is certain that, if any rule regarding penalty for carriage of contraband is generally recognised at all, it is the rule that contraband goods can be confiscated.1 But there always remains the difficulty that it is controverted what articles are contraband, and that the practice of States varies much regarding the question how far the vessel herself and innocent cargo carried by her can be confiscated. For beyond the rule that absolute contraband can be confiscated, there is no unanimity regarding the fate of the vessel and the innocent part of the cargo. Great Britain and the United States of America confiscate the vessel when the owner of the contraband is also the owner of the vessel; they also confiscate such part of the innocent cargo as belongs to the owner of the contraband goods; they, lastly, confiscate the vessel, although her owner is not the owner of the contraband, provided he knew of the fact that his vessel was carrying contraband, or provided the vessel sailed with false or simulated papers for the purpose of carrying contraband. Some States allow such vessel carrying contraband as is not herself liable to confiscation to proceed with her voyage on delivery of her contraband goods to the seizing cruiser, but Great Britain and other States insist upon the vessel being brought before a Prize Court in every case. § 406. Those States which make a distinction Pre the armed vessels or by the military forces of either party; it being understood that this exemption shall not extend to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval forces of either party." See above, § 178. But if a vessel carrying con. traband sailed before the outbreak 2 See Holland, Prize Law, 3 See Calvo, V. § 2779. See Holland, Prize Law, § 81. emption of Conditional Contraband. between absolute and conditional contraband regularly confiscate neither the conditional contraband nor the vessel that carries it, but they seize the former and pay for it. According to British practice,1 freight is paid to the vessel, and for the conditional contraband the usual compensation is the cost price plus 10 per cent. profit. States acting thus maintain a right to confiscate conditional contraband but they exercise pre-emption in mitigation of such right. Those Continental writers who refuse to recognise the existence of conditional contraband deny, consequently, that there is a right to confiscate articles not absolutely contraband, but they maintain that every belligerent has, according to the so-called right of angary,2 a right to stop all such neutral vessels as carry provisions and other goods with a hostile destination of which he can make use and to seize such goods against payment of their full value. The Institute of International Law, whose rules regarding contraband, adopted at its meeting at Venice in 1896, restrict contraband to arms, ammunition, articles of military equipment, vessels fitted for naval operations, and instruments for the immediate fabrication of ammunition, contain a compromise regarding articles of ancipitous use. Although these rules say that those articles cannot be considered contraband, they give nevertheless the choice to a belligerent either of exercising pre-emption or of seizing and temporarily detaining them against payment of indemnities.3 1 See Holland, Prize Law, $ 84. Great Britain likewise exercises pre-emption instead of confiscation with regard to such ab. solute contraband as is in an unmanufactured condition and is at the same time the produce of the country exporting it. 2 See above, § 367. 3 It is of value to print here the "Réglementation internationale de la contrebande de |