Untitled - 24grammata.com

APPENDIX. 505plements of war, may soon "become so, and in all probability are designed for that purpose. Secondly It is well known, that in the : presentday, the western maritime powers obtain the greatest part of their shiptimbers from the northern and eastern countries of this part of theworld. In naval wars, the aim for a long period has been, and nevermore so than at the present moment, not only to annihilate the enemy'sfleets, but to obstruct as much as possible the building of new ones.The ardour with which England has pursued this object is known toevery one. For this reason, therefore, ship -timber is one of the articleswhich England insists upon being inducted in the list of contrabandgoods ; while, on the other hand, the northern powers are especially interested in having it omitted, as it forms the bulk of their exports. Ifto this we add (as was the case in the war of the Revolution) the endeavours made to embarrass the enemy by impeding the conveyance ofprovisions, or generally to weaken him by the complete annihilation ofhis commerce, without respect to the losses which neutrals may therebysustain, it will easily be perceived that, eventually, every thing will bereckoned as contraband which is not ballast, and, consequently, that alltrade with an enemy's country will be virtually suspended.Whatever opinions may be formed as to the legality and good policyof this proceeding, the following points we think will now be clear : Inthe first place, according to the generally recognised international lawof Europe, only the immediate necessaries of war can possibly be regarded as contraband ; and if, in the second place, other articles should alsobe interpreted as such, this must be settled, as an exception to the role,by express treaties between the several nations, unless mere force is tosupersede right.These principles appear to be at present actually recognised by both parties. For not only is the restriction, which the existing special treaties ofindividual powers exhibit, expressly recognised in the act of neutrality, inthe definition of contraband ; but, on the other hand, the minister inthe debates of the British parliament, appeals also expressly to the existing treaties of commerce with the northern powers. An 1analysis ofthese, therefore, can alone afford us a deeper insight into the question.The treaties of commerce quoted in parliament were that with Sweden of 1661 ;that with Denmark of 1670 ; and that with Eussia of1793. The continuance of these was expressly asserted ; whether itwas recognised on the other side or not, is irrelevant to the question,which entirely turns upon the stipulations which the treaties contained.In the treaty with Sweden, 2 the following articles are those which require to be noticed :Art. V. " The ships, goods, and ships* crews of either nation, shall,under no pretence, either publicly or privately, either by general orspecial command, be laid under arrest, detained, or in any way treatedwith violence in the ports of either country."Art. XI. "Although it has been settled between the two powers,that neither shall succour the enemy of the other, this is not to be sounderstood as that all commerce and traffic with the enemy of a belligerent party shall be interdicted to a neutral ally.It shall only be detTide the speech of Pitt, February 2, 1801, in Speeches, iii p. 229.2 It will be found at length, in Sehmauss, Corpus Juris gentium Academicum, p. 2302,and in the other well-known collections.