THE QUESTION OF CONTRABAND

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 13, 16 January 1915, Page 4

THE QUESTION OF CONTRABAND

In the numerous protests made a year or two ago against the ratifies-, tion of the Declaration of Loudon, it was pointed out that under it "any Continental belligerent may import any cargo except absolute contraband through a neutral port without molest-J ation," says the Christchurch Press., There is too much reason to believe that this is exactly what has been taking place, despite such precautions as have been possible. Recognising the urgency of the situation which has been developing, the Government notified on October 29th, that, "notwithstanding the provisions of Article 35 of the Declaration, con- ( ditional contraband shall be liable to capture on board a vessel hound for. a neutral port if the goods are con-, signed 'to order,' or if the ship's, papers do not show who is the consignee of the goods, or if they show, a consignee of the goods in territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy." This is, in effect, striking out of the Declaration a provision which altered the position as previously understood by international lawyers. We revert now to the rule that the destination of the contraband cargo, and not' that of the ship, is the decisive factor. A further matter officially notified was that the burden of proving that the destination is innocent rests with the owner of the goods, and it was also laid down that, if satisfied that the enemy was drawing supplies for its armed forces through a neutral country, the British Government may direct that Article 35 of the Declaration of'London shall not apply at all. ' This means that conditional contraband would in such circumstances be liable to capture. The Government took a drastic step, but not without cause.