Untitled - 24grammata.com

APPENDIX. 507declared, that under the designation of contraband shall not be comprehended any kind of provisions, such as fish, flesh, corn, etc. etc., theconveyance of which to hostile ports, if not under blockade, is alwaysto be allowed."Now, although Denmark, as early as 9th July, 1780, acceded to thearmed neutrality, yet this document was not abolished nor infringed,since in that convention the definition of contraband was expressly referred to the existing treaties between the several powers so ; again theacceding to the second armed neutrality did not abolish it, since, notwithstanding the general restriction of contraband to immediate necessaries of war, yet the annexation of this proviso, without infringing theexisting compacts between the several powers, leaves it in full force. Itis obvious, therefore, that Denmark, by her commercial contracts withEngland, was, with regard to contraband goods, so far bound morestrictly to consider every thing which has reference to the building andequipment of ships as comprised in the definition ; but not, on the otherhand, provisions and money, which Sweden had recognised as such.Lastly, as regards Russia, the British minister referred in his speechto the convention of 1793. This convention is the treaty of alliancewhich Catharine II. at that time concluded with England againstFrance. 4 It contains, Art. XI., the"definition : That not only allkinds of supplies and provisions are to be regarded as contraband, butthat they will also, on both sides, generally injure, in every possibleway, the French commerce, 9 *so that the idea of contraband is certainlyhere taken in its widest extent.After this investigation there still remain to be considered the twoother points which formed the subject of controversy, viz. :IH. Are Neutral Ships under Convoy liable to Search or notThis question was, as is well known, affirmatively answered on thepart of England, and negatively on the part of the other states ; andalthough Denmark promised in the last contest not to allow her ships,for the present, to convoy, she nevertheless refused, in any way, to recognise the principle of search. The whole tone of the proceedingrather showed that the Danish government regarded the assertion of theopposite principle as a main point, on which not only the interests ofcommerce, but also the honour of her flag, and, indeed, in some degreeeven the independence of herself as a state, was concerned.But in order to exhibit this subject in its true light, it is necessary toexplain first somewhat more distinctly what the idea of convoy involvesin maritime afiairs and in maritime law.A convoyis well known to be a guard of one or more men-of-war,which the state grants to a number of merchant vessels for their protection. It is not, therefore, a private, but a public affair. But thegranting of a convoy according to the received maritime law, involvesthe following:I. When the state grants it, then only armed ships in the service ofthe state can be used for that purpose, in which case it is however of noconsequence to what class they belong. Therefore, privateers, which,perhaps are bought for the purpose, or even other armed vessels, whichprivate persons cause to be fitted out, would have no legitimate claim to* Polltiselxes Journal, 1793.