1912.] MOORE— CONTRABAND OF WAR. 27 



the said signatory powers. But nothing herein contained shall extend exemp- 

 tion from seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may attempt to enter a 

 port blockaded by the naval forces of any of the said powers. 



What therefore the United States since 1850 has proposed is, 

 not that private property at sea shall be exempt from capture, but 

 that it shall be so exempt, subject to the exceptions of contraband 

 and blockade. The proposal, as thus qualified, no doubt had a sub- 

 stantial character in 1857, since the government of the United States 

 at that day still recalled the limitations upon contraband for which 

 it had traditionally contended. The case was the same when, by 

 the treaty of commerce between the United States and Italy of 

 February 26, 1871, it was actually agreed (Article XII.) that, in 

 the event of war between the two countries, the private property of 

 their citizens and subjects should be exempt from capture on the 

 high seas or elsewhere, subject to the exceptions of contraband and 

 blockade; for the treaty then proceeded (Article XV.) precisely to 

 limit the scope of contraband, confining it to arms and munitions of 

 war, and declaring that those articles " and no others " should be 

 comprehended under that denomination.^^ But at The Hague, in 

 1907, the importance of the exceptions was greatly enhanced by the 

 separate presentation on the part of the United States of an ex- 

 tremely vague and sweeping proposition on contraband of war, in 

 which provisions appear, no doubt for the first time in American 

 diplomacy, in the category of absolute as well as in that of condi- 

 tional contraband.^" Taking into consideration the objects of war, 

 opinions will necessarily differ as to the merits and value of a pro- 

 posal to exempt enemy ships and enemy goods as such from capture, 

 while leaving in force the law of blockade and of contraband, with- 

 out any precise definition or limitation of the latter. Such a pro- 

 posal holds out no advantage to neutrals, but offers to belligerents 

 the favor of placing them on the same footing as neutrals commer- 

 cially. And even the extent of this favor would depend upon the 

 definition and scope of contraband. Is there not, indeed, a certain 

 incongruity in exempting from capture such an obviously important 



'* Note A, infra, p. 42. 

 '"Note B, infra, p. 43. 



