Opinion of Pradier-Fodéré.—The general principle is, "if a vessel has succeeded in escaping from a blockaded port she is liable to capture before she reaches her home port. But with the termination of the voyage the offense ends."

Pradier-Fodéré well says:

Il se peut que du temps de Grotius la notion de la violation ait été moins étendue qu'elle ne l'est aujourd'hui; qu'avant Bynkershoëck l'entrée seule dans les ports bloqués ait été considérée comme illicite, tandis que de nos jours on regarde comme telles l'entrée et la sortie, suivant les cas, etc.; ce qu'il y a de certain, c'est qu'il n'y a pas de matière où le pêle-mêle des théories et des pratiques contraires soit plus inextricable et fasse de cette question un objet d'étude plus indigeste: les gouvernements restreignant dans des proportions justes, ou êlargissant outre mesure, la notion du fait délictueux, suivant qu'ils sont disposés à épargner ou à atteindre le plus possible le navigation étrangère; la doctrine soutenant trop souvent avec docilité, dans chaque pays, les vues de son gouvernement, ou s'émancipant et se perdant dans le labyrinthe de ses distinctions subtiles et des systèmes; enfin les conseils et tribuneaux de prise posant dans leurs décisions des principes, tantôt très larges, tantôt très rigoureux. Pour éviter de se perdre dans ce mélange obscur d'opinions et d'applications diverses, il est nécessaire de se laisser plus que jamais guider par les lumières du sens commun, et de rechercher, non ce qui est (c'est à dire à peu près le chaos), mais ce qui doit être. Or, le bon sens se joignant aux principes les plus élémentaires du droit, il s'agisse d'un blocus régulier; qu'il n'y ait eu un acte matériel constituant soit une violation, soit une tentative de violation; que le navire neutre arrêté comme violateur ait eu connaissance du blocus; que l'existence du blocus ait été portée à sa connaissance, sur la ligne méme de l'investissement; que le navire neutre ait été surpris en flagrant délit. Telles sont les conditions essentielles principales de al violation des blocus, conformes à la raison, à l'équité et aux vrais principes du droit; tout ce qui est en dehors d'elles est irrationel, arbitraire et inique. (8 Droit international public, p. 391, §3139.)

(a) Conclusion as to the blockade.-In Situation VI (a), a neutral merchant vessel is overtaken in time of war by a war vessel of the United States and is found to have been guilty of a breach of blockade established and maintained with reasonable efficiency by the United States. The war vessel in such case would of course only take

CONTRABAND TRADE.

115

action against the neutral vessel if overtaken on the high seas or within belligerent jurisdiction and before return to her home port. The commander of the war vessel would further be bound to act under orders such as are shown in General Order No. 492. He would be bound also by international law, by treaties, etc. When in doubt in regard to any of these points, the safe course is to send the vessel in for adjudication by the prize court.

The conclusion in this case would therefore be that the commander of the United States war vessel, unless certain the neutral vessel breaking the blockade was exempt from seizure, should send the neutral vessel to the nearest prize court.

Contraband trade.—In concluding his discussion on the sale of contraband, Professor Moore says:

The fundamental principles are simply these: From the point of view of neutrality the question of unlawfulness is presented in two aspects, (1) that of international law and (2) that of municipal law. Offenses under (1), i. e., acts unlawful by international law, are divided into two classes, (a) acts which the state is bound to prevent and (b) acts which the state is not bound to prevent, and which therefore are not usually offenses against municipal law. The dealing in contraband belongs under (1) (b), for it is (1) unlawful by international law, as is shown by the fact that the noxious articles may be seized on the high seas and confiscated; but (b) it is not an act which it is the duty of the neutral state to prevent, and therefore is not usually prohibited by municipal law.

Why is the neutral state not bound to prevent it? Simply because, from obvious considerations of convenience, it has been deemed just to confine within reasonable bounds the duty of the neutral state to interfere with the commerce of its citizens, even for the purpose of repressing unneutral acts. The principal interest to be subserved being that of the belligerents, it is left to them, in respect of many acts in their nature unneutral, to adopt measures of self-protection; and neutral states are deemed to have discharged their full duty when they submit to the belligerent enforcement of such measures against their citizens and their commerce. (7 Digest of International Law, p. 972.)

Vladivostok court on the Allanton.-The decision of the Vladivostok prize court in the case of the Allanton states that the visiting party from the Russian war vessel found the Allanton a British steamer

with a cargo of 6,500 tons Japanese coal. Besides the captain, Henry Motger, and the crew, consisting of 30 men of different nationalities, was a young Japanese who declared he had embarked in Mororan for the purpose of going to America, which statement was confirmed by the captain. Examination of the ship's documents showed that the Allanton was going to Singapore with coal from Mororan; nevertheless the officer requested the captain to take all documents and accompany him on board the cruiser for the purpose of giving more exact information. To this the captain demurred, but sent on board his mate, Henry Mitchell, with the documents. At the second examination of the documents it turned out that the official log book and the chief officer's log book were missing, and these were immediately ordered to be sent for examination. The official log book was not in order, being kept up only until May 2/15, 1904. According to remarks in chief officer's log and also other documents it became evident that in May the Allanton brought to Sasebo a full cargo of Cardiff coal. After having discharged this contraband in Sasebo, the steamer went to Mororan, where she took a new cargo of Japanese coal according to documents destined for Singapore and addressed to Messrs. Patterson, Simon & Co. The admiral being doubtful as to the genuineness of the steamer's destination, gave orders to have her taken to Vladivostok. On June 6/19 steamer arrived in Vladivostok under command of Lieutenant Petroff, and the case was given to the prize court for trial. At trial captain stated that steamer was registered at Glasgow, owned by W. Rea, resident in Belfast. On February 8/21, she left Cardiff with coal bound for Hongkong, by way of Cape of Good Hope. Upon her arrival at Hongkong the captain received orders to proceed to Sasebo with cargo. Having discharged her cargo there, she proceeded to Mororan, where new cargo of coal was taken for Singapore. On her way to this port she was detained by the Russian cruisers in the Japanese Sea.

The Japanese, Tatiki Miachara, declared that he embarked on the Allanton in Mororan intending to go to America for the purpose of completing his education, but neither a passport nor any other document to prove his identity were in his possession.

Having taken into consideration all circumstances of the case referred to, the court decided:

"1. That the S. S. Allanton was arrested correctly, under observance of the rules in paragraphs 2, 3, 15, and 17 of the statutes of Maritime Prizes, and on the basis of fully satisfactory reasons justifying the steps taken. Such reasons are:

"(a) The irregularity of the ship's log.

CASE OF THE ALLANTON.

117

"(b) Indisputable proof of the ship having delivered recently at a Japanese port a full cargo of contraband of war with full knowledge and sanction of owner.

"(c) The chartering of the steamer by a Japanese trading company and the fact that she was loaded exclusively with coal, being contraband of war, in case the real destination was not Singapore but a hostile port or squadron."

Proceeding to consider the question of the owner's standpoint with regard to the obligations of neutrality, the court found that

"2. The owner took active measures that the cargo should not be exposed to detention on its way to Japan.'"

With regard to the second trip, during which the Allanton was arrested by the Russian cruisers in the Japanese Sea, this time the court also turned its attention to the following important circumstances:

"(a) The course the steamer kept on her way to Mororan passed through the whole theater of present war * * * which could be very easily avoided by taking the way through the ocean, so much the more as the last-mentioned way to Singapore, if this were the destination, would have been only a trifle longer, about 100-120 miles.

"(b) The statement given by the young Japanese, Tatiki Miachara, embarked in the Allanton at Mororan for the purpose of going to America to finish his education, is apparently invented, as Miachara had no document whatever in his possession to prove his identity, whereas, taking into consideration the utterly strict passport rules in Japan and with regard to Asiatics in America, it appears impossible for a Japanese subject, not having served his time in the army, and not having in his possession a certificate stating his being released from the same, to leave Japan without permission from the local authorities and without a passport in his possession.

"(c) The discontinuance of remarks of arrivals at ports in the official log, from the moment the ship left Hongkong, and further the fact that even after the first illegal trip was finished no such remarks have been made, seem to prove that on the second trip Singapore was no more the destination of the Allanton than Hongkong was on the first.

"3. Concerning the cargo the Allanton carried when arrested, the fact that the steamer was chartered directly by the Japanese company for taking a full cargo of coal from Mororan and the nonexistence of any statement whatever showing that the coal had become the property of a neutral proves that the cargo in question was still the property of the Japanese company; consequently, being hostile property, accompanied by the Japanese, Miachara, presumably in the capacity of agent.

"A combination of all details and circumstances mentioned above and the character of the cargo convinces the court that the real destination of this hostile cargo was by no means Singapore, but a Japanese or Corean port, or even the enemy's fleet maneuvering in the open sea, on account of which the cargo in question was declared by the court to be contraband of war in accordance with paragraph 6, clause 8 of H. I. M. order of February 14, 1904.

66

"The court considers it proved that illegal actions have been exercised by the owner of the ship and captain of the same for the strengthening of the enemy's military store by bringing him coal, necessary for carrying on naval warfare, and that the steamer Allanton has thereby forfeited the rights of neutrality. 'Considering the circumstances in this case in connection with state of affairs in the theater of war, the court finds—even independent of the proved fact that the Allanton was about to bring contraband of war to the enemy-that the facts referred to are so much the more important, as ships of neutrals serving in the place of the Japanese merchant service, and thus enabling the Japanese Government to utilize the latter for furtherance of war operations, exercise a great influence on the results of the war, disadvantageous to Russia, not speaking of the fact that such actions on the part of neutrals, being left unpunished, would make it almost impossible for Russia to follow up one of the most important and natural objects in naval war-to cut off the enemy from the possibility of availing himself of the sea as a means of communication."

The prize court considered the Allanton, as well as her cargo, fully legal prize, and accordingly decided to confiscate the same in favor of the Imperial Government.

Opinions of the case.-Smith and Sibley, reviewing the case of the Allanton, say:

The Allanton, as appears from the argument of M. Sheftel, could not, on any fair construction, be considered as engaged in a contraband transaction, either when proceeding to Mororan or when leaving that port. M. Sheftel proceeded to observe that the majority of the authorities on international law held that a vessel which succeeded in conveying contraband to a hostile port and was captured, not while engaged in doing so, but subsequently on the return voyage, could not be held liable to confiscation. Such was the principle enunciated by Prof. Franz Despagnet, Prof. Franz von Liszt, and Prof. de Martens. Prof. de Martens, in his work, "International Law among Civilized Nations," positively asserted that "In order that the seizure of a neutral vessel for conveying contraband should be lawful, it