NEUTRALITY 261 of visitation. It is not possible to define con- traband specifically, that is, to declare what particular articles will be so regarded in time of war. There can be no doubt, however, respecting things which can be used only in war, or respecting materials which are pecu- liarly fitted by their nature for warlike uses. On the other hand, things which cannot be employed in war are, it is equally certain, not contraband. But it is difficult to determine the character of articles which are ancipitis usus, of a double or indifferent nature, and service- able as well in peace as in war, such as money, provisions, ships and materials for ships, and naval stores. The decision will always be influ- enced by many considerations, as by the state and nature of the war, or by the highly prob- able destination of goods to a military use. Thus provisions, which prima facie are not contraband, will certainly be declared so when they are destined to a besieged town or block- aded port. The character of the port to which goods are bound may also be of consequence : whether, that is to say, it be a port of merely naval equipment, or one of general commerce. The changes which science has made in the needs and modes of warfare are also to be regarded, as well as the consideration whether the goods alleged to be contraband are or are not the produce of the country which exports them. ' Carrying official communications for a belligerent upon the public affairs of his state is a flagrant violation of neutrality. But to carry despatches from the enemy to his ambas- sador or consul in a neutral country is, gener- ally speaking, no ground for condemnation, for the legal presumption is that the commu- nication has reference to the commercial rela- tions of the belligerent and the neutral. In the case of the Trent, in 1861, a naval officer of the United States asserted the right to seize on a neutral ship the ambassadors of the ene- my proceeding to the courts to which they were accredited ; but the right was denied by Great Britain, and the government disavowed the act. It seems to be the better opinion that the contraband character of the ship or goods terminates with that passage in which the forbidden trade is intended or done, and does not affect the whole voyage. The owner of the contraband loses all, even the innocent goods which he has laden in the ship. Other shippers forfeit nothing. This doctrine of contraband implies rather necessarily the bel- ligerent's right to search neutral ships for such articles as may contribute to the com- fort and strength of the enemy. The law of nations has been in this respect that in time of war search may be made for contra- band and for enemy's goods. The late modi- fication of the former practice, by which, as we have already seen, the goods of the ene- my in neutral ships are now exempted from seizure, ^must tend, it would seem, to reduce the application of the law of search to the case of contraband alone. Some powers have de- feated or hoped to defeat the right of search for contraband goods by forbidding their sub- jects to carry them; and sometimes treaties have provided that, in the case of ships under convoy, the declaration of the commander should suffice to exempt the ships in his charge from search. A further restriction in force on the commerce of the neutral consists in his in- capacity to trade to blockaded ports. To con- stitute a violation of blockade there must be first an actual blockade by a force sufficient to maintain the same ; then there must have been proper notification of it ; with these must con- cur some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the com- mencement of the blockade or an attempt so to do. Sir William Scott once held that a tem- porary absence of the blockading squadron, from being driven off by a storm or other ac- cident, did not suspend the operation of the blockade. The French publicists controvert this doctrine, as unwarranted by the general principles of international law. But the law as Sir William Scott declared it is probably at present the law of England. The English and French declarations of 1854, however, speak of u effective blockades, which may be established with adequate forces." Some exception has been taken in the United States to the rule which forbids the departure of a vessel laden after the blockade was known. In a commu- nication to Mr. Buchanan, American minister in London, in 1854, Mr. Marcy urges that, hav- ing visited the port in the common freedom of trade, the neutral vessel ought to be allowed to depart with a cargo, without regard to the time when it was received on board. This relaxation of the law of blockade will be hardly yet admitted in the general practice of nations ; but, especially in our treaties with the Central and South American republics, it has assumed the form of familiar stipulation. The princi- ples of the international law of neutrality as- sume a peculiar significance in the law of ma- rine insurance. In marine policies the owner- ship of the property is usually the subject of express warranty, and underwriters are thus informed of its liability to or freedom from war risks. The neutrality itself may be some- times expressly warranted. In these cases the warranty is construed to mean, first, that the ship or cargo is actually owned by citizens of a country not at war when the risk begins, and secondly, that with the property there shall go all those usual documents and precautions which prove the neutrality and protect it from belligerent risks. The bill of sale of the ship, the sea letter or customary certificate of na- tionality, the register of the vessel, the charter party, shipping papers, the log book, and in general all the documents which usually state the national character, and especially the flag, must conform to the warranted neutrality of the ship. The law holds, too, that if a vessel exhibit only false papers when she is captured, there is a breach of the warranty, though she
