514 INTERNATIONAL LAW 



a total inhibition of the sale by neutrals to the people of belligerent 

 states of all articles which could be finally converted to military use," 

 and adds that such principles " would not appear to be in accord 

 with the reasonable and lawful rights of a neutral commerce." 

 Queen Elizabeth would not allow the Poles and Danes to furnish 

 Spain with provisions, alleging that by the rules of war " it is lawful 

 to reduce an army by famine." 1 But the present government of 

 England has expressed its accord with the views of Secretary Hay 

 by an official note of protest, dated August 1, against the claim that 

 food is absolutely contraband. 2 Lord Lansdowne, in the Lords, 

 August 11, said that the Russian declaration " greatly amplified 

 the definition of contraband, including much England regarded as 

 innocent. England would not consider herself bound to recognize as 

 valid the position of any prize court which violated the recognized 

 international law." And Mr. Balfour in the Commons, on the same 

 day, said as to the doctrine that a belligerent could draw up a list of 

 articles it would regard as contraband and that prize courts must 

 decide accordingly: " If that doctrine were accepted without 

 reservation, neutrals would be at a serious disadvantage." August 

 25, in reply to the shipping deputation, Mr. Balfour said there 

 was no possibility of Great Britain receding, inasmuch as she knew 

 she stood " on the basis of all recognized international law to be 

 found in all the text-books and in accordance with the general prac- 

 tice of civilized nations." 



The English view, and it is believed it is the view of the world, 

 is well put by the Law Times of London. 3 It declares " the position 

 of Russia as to contraband cannot be accepted for a moment by 

 Great Britain," and says the point is well summed up by the London 

 Times in a leading article: " To entitle a belligerent to treat goods as 

 contraband, there must be a fair presumption that they are intended 

 for warlike use, and such presumption does not arise from the mere 

 fact that they are consigned to a belligerent port. In other words, 

 non-blockaded ports should be open to the legitimate trade of neu- 

 trals, and belligerents who . . . have not the power to establish an 

 effective blockade cannot be suffered to attain the object of such 

 blockade by an ... extension of the definition of contraband." 



At least, since the Declaration of Paris of 1856, a paper blockade is 

 of no legal force, and a blockade to be recognized by the law of 

 nations must be " maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent 

 access to the coast of the enemy." 4 This immensely increased the 



1 Taylor's International Law, p. 736; Grotius, Droit des Gens, in, sees. 112, 117, 

 and note to soc. 112. 



2 Boston Evening Transcript, August 9, 1904. 

 * Law Times, August 13, 1904, p. 330. 



MVhcaton's Inter. L., 4th Eng. ed., 1904, p. 691. See this also declared in 



