32 MOORE— CONTRABAND OF WAR. [Februarys, 



state of ar between Great Britain and r>ance furnished neither 

 belligerent with the right to interrupt the agriculture of the United 

 States, or the peaceable exchange of its produce with all nations. 

 Such an act of interference tended directly to draw the United 

 States from the state of peace in which they wished to remain. If 

 the United States permitted corn to be sent to Great Britain and her 

 friends, and refused it to France, such an act of partiality might 

 lead to war with the latter power. If they withheld supplies of 

 provisions from France, they should in like manner be bound to 

 withhold them from her enemies also, and thus to close to them- 

 selves all the ports of Europe where corn was in demand, or else 

 make themselves a party to the war. This was a dilemma into 

 which no pretext for forcing the United States could be found. 

 Great Britain might, indeed, feel the desire of starving an enemy 

 nation ; but she could have no right to do it at the cost of the United 

 States, or to make the latter the instrument of it.-^ 



Such was the position maintained by the United States ; and 

 when John Jay was sent on a special mission to England in 1794 

 to negotiate a settlement of differences, the first topic discussed in 

 his instructions was that of the vexations inflicted on commerce 

 under orders in council. By the treaty which he signed on Novem- 

 ber 19, 1794, a precise enumeration was made (Article XVIII.) of 

 the things which were admitted to be contraband, and it was stipu- 

 lated that when cases arose in which " provisions and other articles 

 not generally contraband " might, according to the existing law of 

 nations, be regarded as becoming such, they should not, even though 

 seized on that ground, be confiscated, but should be paid for at their 

 full value, together with a reasonable mercantile profit, freight and 

 demurrage.-^ Nor was this all. A mixed commission was estab- 

 lished under the treaty (Article VII.) to adjudicate complaints on 

 account of seizures. The British authorities, where they made com- 

 pensation for cargoes of provisions, adopted as a basis the invoice 

 price plus a mercantile profit of ten per cent. The claimants con- 

 tended that this was inadequate. The commission allowed the net 



"For a full narrative of this incident and the text of the orders in council, 

 see Moore's " History and Digest of International Arbitrations," I., 299-306. 

 "^ Note F, infra, p. 45. 



