[810] The Mercurius (1798), 1 C. Rob. 80; the Columbia (1799), 1 C. Rob. 154; the Alexander (1801), 4 C. Rob. 93; the Adonis (1804), 5 C. Rob. 256; the Exchange (1808), Edwards, 39; the Panaghia Rhomba (1858), 12 Moore, P.C. 168—See Phillimore, III. §§ 318-319.

[811] The Maria (1805), 6 C Rob. 201.

[812] See above, § [385 (4)].

The Declaration of London settles the matter by a very simple rule, for according to article 21 the penalty for blockade-breaking is condemnation of the vessel in all cases, and condemnation of the cargo also, unless the owner proves that at the time of the shipment of the goods the shipper neither knew nor could have known of the intention of the vessel to break the blockade. The case in which the whole or part of the cargo consists of contraband, is not mentioned by article 21, but its condemnation is a matter of course.

CHAPTER IV CONTRABAND

I CONCEPTION OF CONTRABAND

Grotius, III. c. 1, § 5—Bynkershoek, Quaest. jur. publ. I. cc, IX-XII—Vattel, III. §§ 111-113—Hall, §§ 236-247—Lawrence, §§ 253-259—Westlake, II. pp. 240-265—Maine, pp. 96-122—Manning, pp. 352-399—Phillimore, III. §§ 226-284—Twiss, II. §§ 121-151—Halleck, II. pp. 214-238—Taylor, §§ 653-666—Walker, §§ 73-75—Wharton, III. §§ 368-375—Moore, VII. §§ 1249—1263—Wheaton, §§ 476-508—Bluntschli, §§ 801-814—Heffter, §§ 158-161—Geffcken in Holtzendorff, IV. pp. 713-731—Gareis, § 89—Liszt, § 42—Ullmann, §§ 193-194—Bonfils, No. 1537-158815—Despagnet, Nos. 705-715 ter—Rivier, II pp. 416-423—Calvo, V. §§ 2708-2795—Fiore, III. Nos. 1591-1601, and Code, Nos. 1827-1835—Martens, II. § 136—Kleen, I. §§ 70-102—Boeck, Nos. 606-659—Pillet, pp. 315-330—Gessner, pp. 70-144—Perels, §§ 44-46—Testa, pp. 201-220—Lawrence, War, pp. 140-174—Ortolan, II. pp. 165-213—Hautefeuille, II. pp. 69-172—Dupuis, Nos. 199-230, and Guerre, Nos. 137-171—Bernsten, § 9—Nippold, II. § 35—Takahashi, pp. 490-526—Holland, Prize Law, §§ 57-87—U.S. Naval War Code, articles 34-36—Heineccius, De navibus ob vecturam vetitarum mercium commissis dissertatio (1740)—Huebner, De la saisie des bâtiments neutres, 2 vols. (1759)—Valin, Traité des prises, 2 vols. (1763)—Martens, Essai sur les armateurs, les prises, et surtout les reprises (1795)—Lampredi, Del commercio dei populi neutrali in tempo di guerra (1801)—Tetens, Considérations sur les droits réciproques des puissances belligérantes et des puissances neutres sur mer (1805)—Pistoye et Duverdy, Traité des prises maritimes, 2 vols. (1855)—Pratt, The Law of Contraband of War (1856)—Moseley, What is Contraband and what is not? (1861)—Upton, The Law of Nations affecting Commerce during War (1863)—Lehmann, Die Zufuhr von Kriegskonterbandewaren, etc. (1877)—Kleen, De contrebande de guerre et des transports interdits aux neutres (1893)—Vossen, Die Konterbande des Krieges (1896)—Manceaux, De la contrebande de guerre (1899)—Brochet, De la contrebande de guerre (1900)—Hirsch, Kriegskonterbande und verbotene Transporte in Kriegszeiten (1901)—Pincitore, Il contrabbando di guerra (1902)—Remy, Théorie de la continuauté du voyage en matière de blocus et de contrebande de guerre (1902)—Knight, Des états neutres au point de vue de la contrebande de guerre (1903)—Wiegner, Die Kriegskonterbande (1904)—Atherley-Jones, Commerce in War (1906), pp. 1-91 and 253-283—Hold, Die Kriegskonterbande (1907)—Hansemann, Die Lehre von der einheitlichen Reise im Rechte der Blockade und Kriegskonterbande (1910)—Hirschmann, Das internationale Prisenrecht (1912), §§ 24-30—Westlake in R.I. II. (1870), pp. 614-655—Kleen in R.I. XXV. (1893), pp. 7, 124, 209, 389, and XXVI. pp. 214-217 (1894)—Bar in R.I. XXVI. (1894), pp. 401-414—Brocher de la Fléchère, in R.I. 2nd Ser. I. (1899), pp. 337-353—Fauchille in R.G. IV. (1897), pp. 297-323—Kleen in R.G. XI. (1904), pp. 353-362—Gover in The Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation, new series, II. (1900), pp. 118-130—Kennedy and Randall in The Law Quarterly Review, XXIV (1908), pp. 59-75, 316-327, and 449-464—General Report presented to the Naval Conference of London by its Drafting Committee, articles 22-44.

Definition of Contraband of War.

§ 391. The term contraband is derived from the Italian "contrabbando," which, itself deriving from the Latin "contra" and "bannum" or "bandum," means "in defiance of an injunction." Contraband of war[813] is the designation of such goods as by either belligerent are forbidden to be carried to the enemy on the ground that they enable the latter to carry on the war with greater vigour. But this definition is only a formal one, as it does not state what kinds of goods belong to the class of contraband. This point was much controverted before the Declaration of London. Throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries the matter stood as Grotius had explained it. Although he does not employ the term contraband, he treats of the matter. He[814] distinguishes three different kinds of articles. Firstly, those which, as arms for instance, can only be made use of in war, and which are, therefore, always contraband. Secondly, those, as for example articles of luxury, which can never be made use of in war and which, therefore, are never contraband. Thirdly, those which, as money, provisions, ships, and articles of naval equipment, can be made use of in war as well as in peace, and which are on account of their ancipitous use contraband or not according to the circumstances of the case. In spite of Bynkershoek's decided opposition[815] to this distinction by Grotius, the practice of most belligerents until the beginning of the twentieth century has been in conformity with it. A great many treaties have from the beginning of the sixteenth century been concluded between many States for the purpose of fixing what articles belonging to the class of ancipitous use should, and what should not, be regarded between the parties as contraband, but these treaties disagree with one another. And, so far as they were not bound by a treaty, belligerents formerly exercised their discretion in every war according to the special circumstances and conditions in regarding or not regarding certain articles of ancipitous use as contraband. The endeavour of the First and the Second Armed Neutrality of 1780 and 1800 to restrict the number and kinds of articles that could be regarded as contraband failed, and the Declaration of Paris of 1856 uses the term contraband without any attempt to define it.