2
recognize as valid, any decisions inconsistent with these principles, or otherwise not in conformity with the recognized principles of international law which might be given by the Russian Prize Courts. It will doubtless be within the recollection of your Chamber that this statement was publicly reiterated both by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on the 11th August last.
It is proper, however, to observe that a decision of a Prize Court must be understood to mean, not merely the decision of a Court of First Instance, such as those established at Vladivostock, Libau, and elsewhere, but that of the Supreme Admiralty Council at St. Petersburgh, to which appeal lies from the inferior Courts, just as, in this country, appeal lies from the finding of a Vice-Admiralty Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and the usual legal remedies should as a rule be exhausted before diplomatic intervention can properly be invoked.
With regard to the question of coal and the other articles of fuel enumerated in paragraph 8 of Rule 6, His Majesty's Government represented that the treatment of this article by Russia as unconditionally contraband was diametrically opposed to the declaration made by the Russian Plenipotentiary at the West African Conference held at Berlin in 1884, who stated that his instructions were peremptory, and that his Government refused categorically to consent to any Treaty, Convention, or Declaration of any kind which would imply the recognition of coal as contraband of war. His Majesty's Government accordingly urged that, like food-stuffs, coal should only be regarded as contraband when it was clearly intended for use by the military or naval forces of the enemy, and not merely because it was consigned for innocent or commercial purposes to private traders in the enemy country.
His Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburgh has also urged upon the Russian Government the unfairness of treating raw cotton as unconditionally contraband. He has pointed out that the quantity of this article which might be utilized for the manufacture of explosives would be infinitesimal in comparison with the bulk of raw cotton exported from India and elsewhere to Japan for peaceful purposes, and that to treat harmless cargoes of this latter description as unconditionally contraband would amount to subjecting a branch of innocent commerce, which is specially important in the Far East, to a most unwarrantable interference.
The Russian Government have met all these representations, as well as others which His Majesty's Government and that of the United States have thought proper to address to them, in a conciliatory manner, and it is satisfactory that they should have conceded one of the most important principles for which His Majesty's Government have contended, viz., that rice and provisions, mentioned in paragraph 10 of Rule 6, as well as articles not enumerated in paragraphs 1 to 9, but which may be put to warlike use, will henceforth be regarded only as conditionally contraband, according to the use to which they are to be applied. The onus of proof in such cases would lie with the captor, but it would obviously be in the interests of the owner to be prepared with evidence sufficient to displace any prima facie case which might be made against them. It is understood that Russian Naval Commanders have been recently furnished with supplementary instructions, which His Majesty's Government have every reason to believe will be interpreted in a liberal spirit, and will result in their exercising their belligerents' rights for the future in a less rigorous and vexatious manner.
**
I may here observe that the decisions of the Prize Court at Vladivostock in the matters of the sinking of the "Knight Commander," and the condemnation of cargoes on board the steam-ships "Arabia," "Calchas," and "Cheltenham," are forming the subject of appeals to the Supreme Admiralty Council at St. Petersburgh. Both His Majesty's Government and that of the United States have protested, on principle, against the condemnations of cargoes of flour destined, as they believe, for innocent purposes, which were carried by the "Arabia" and also by the "Calchas." They have every reason to hope that these findings will be reversed on appeal, the result of which must, however, be awaited. The Supreme Admiralty Council has, it is satisfactory to learn, already reversed the finding of the Vladivostock Court in the case of the steam-ship "Allanton." The Russian Government have recognized in principle claims advanced on behalf of the "Frankby" and "Ettrickdale," two steamers which were delayed in the Red Sea at the commencement of the war, subject to the adjustment of certain minor details between the owners and the Russian naval authorities. Other claims arising out of cases which are not pending in the Courts, such as the sinking of the "Hipsang" and the detention of the "Malacca" and of the "Ardova,” are in course of preparation, and will be put forward as soon as circumstances permit.
3
There is no doubt that the uncertainty which prevails as to the interpretation by the Russian authorities of their declaration as to contraband has rendered British ship-owners unwilling to engage in the carrying trade to Japan, and that many leading firms of British ship-owners have refused to accept cargo for Japan, while the shipping firms of certain other countries, notably Germany, have benefited to a considerable extent through such refusal.
It has been again and again suggested that more favoured treatment has been extended by the Russian authorities to German vessels than has been accorded to British ships, but, so far as His Majesty's Government have been able to ascertain after careful inquiry, this suggestion is not supported by any satisfactory evidence.
His Majesty's Government fully recognize the importance of the point, for there seems to be some reason to apprehend that the merchants of Japan or of countries having commercial relations with Japan, on finding that their goods are conveyed as satisfactorily by foreign as by British ships, may continue to give their custom to foreign firms, and that permanent injury may be thus occasioned to the British carrying trade in the Far East.
His Majesty's Government have been frequently approached by persons interested in the commerce of the Far East with requests for information whether cargoes of a particular description can be regarded as entitled to immunity from seizure by belligerent vessels. His Majesty's Government would have been glad, if possible, to furnish the desired information. So long, however, as the accepted principles of international law recognize that between those articles which are, in consequence of their nature, absolutely contraband of war, and those which can in no circumstances be regarded as of anything but an innocent character, there lies an intermediate class of articles which may be properly treated as contraband, or as innocent, according as they are or are not found to be destined for warlike purposes, it is obviously not in the power of any Government to take upon itself to determine beforehand whether articles falling within that intermediate class can safely be carried by a neutral vessel.
I am to express Lord Lansdowne's hope that the particulars furnished in this letter may be of use to your Chamber.
I am, &c.
(Signed) F. A. CAMPBELL.
677
1