of Naval Prize Law, to the effect that "the destination of the vessel is conclusive as to the destination of the goods on board." Lord Salisbury replied that:

"In the opinion of Her Majesty's government the passage cited from the manual 'that the destination of the vessel is conclusive as to the destination of the goods on board,' has no application to such circumstances as had now arisen.

"It cannot apply to contraband of war on board of a neutral vessel, if such contraband was at the time of seizure consigned or intended to be delivered to an agent of the enemy at a neutral port, or, in fact, destined for the enemy's country.

"The true view in regard to the latter category of goods is, as Her Majesty's government believe, correctly stated in paragraph 813 of Professor Bluntschli's 'Droit International Codifié' (French translation of 1874, second edition of the work of this eminent German jurist): 'Si les navires ou marchandises ne sont expédiés à destination d'un port neutre que pour mieux venir en aide à l'ennemi, il y aura contrebande de guerre et la confiscation sera justifiée.'

"Her Majesty's government are unable, therefore, to agree that there are grounds for ordering the release of the Bundesrath without examination by the prize court as to whether she was carrying contraband of war belonging to or destined for the South African republics. But they fully recognize how desirable it is that this examination should be carried through at the earliest possible moment, and that all proper consideration should be shown for the owners and for innocent passengers and merchandise on board of her. Repeated and urgent instructions have been sent by telegraph for this purpose, and arrangements have been made for the speedy transmission of the mails." "

After examination of these German vessels they were released. The British government paid compensation for the delay. Atlay, stating his opinion in his edition of Hall's International Law, says that, if a similar case again arises, "I venture to think that the attitude of whatever British government may be in office will tend rather to the views expressed by Lord Salisbury than to those enunciated by Mr. Hall, and

Parliamentary Papers, Africa, No. 1 (1900).

WILS. INT.L.-30

that the destination of the cargo, not merely the destination of the vessel, will be the criterion." 8

Another case where the second stage of transportation was by land rather than by water, as in the case of the Springbok, was the case of the Doelwyk, a Dutch vessel captured by the Italian cruiser Etna, August 8, 1896, during the war between Italy and Abyssinia. The Italian court condemned vessel and cargo. This decision has also met with much unfavorable criticism.

The Institute of International Law in 1896 adopted a rule in regard to continuous voyage to the effect that enemy destination could be presumed in spite of transport to an intermediate neutral port, provided there was ample evidence of final enemy destination."

The Japanese Regulations Governing Captures at Sea, March 7, 1907, provide: "Art. 17. In case of a ship, the destination of which is not the enemy's territory, whether she calls at that destination and discharges cargo or not, if there is reason to believe that the cargo in question is being con- . veyed to the enemy's territory, her voyage shall be regarded as a continuous voyage, and her destination shall be held to have been, from the commencement, the enemy's territory." The same regulations provided that the destination of the ship is the destination of the cargo.

The change in the means and methods of transportation has made new regulations necessary. With the increased opportunity for easy and quick intercourse between the enemy and neutral ports has come a corresponding danger to the other belligerent. Against this danger he must have an increased ability to protect himself. It has sometimes been stated that the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage limits the freedom of neutral commerce. The trade in contraband is undertaken in time of war particularly because of the exceptional profits. The profits of successful trade in contraband

8 Hall, Int. Law (5th Ed.) p. 671.

"La destination pour l'ennemi est présumée lorsque le transport va à l'un de ses ports, ou bien à un port neutre qui, d'après des preuves évidentes et de fait incontestable, n'est qu'une étape pour l'ennemi, comme but final de la même opération commerciale."

15 Annuaire de l'Institut (1896), p. 231.

articles at such a time are exceptional, because the possession of such articles by the one belligerent gives him an advantage over the other belligerent which he would not otherwise have. For this advantage he is willing to pay a war price. The neutral furnishing him this advantage should not be permitted to act with impunity, nor is it reasonable that the other belligerent should be required to permit such action. The whole transaction would be contrary to the spirit of the laws of neutrality, and would simply serve to mask an unneutral act under the form of a legitimate transaction. There is no reason to regard a voyage as more legitimate because made more circuitously. The number of stopping places does not necessarily change the ultimate destination of a vessel, nor the number of transshipments the destination of its cargo. The present tendency of opinion seems to be toward a recognition of a reasonable and clearly defined doctrine of continuous voyage. "This means that the vessel and cargo may be captured wherever such vessel and cargo may be found outside of neutral jurisdiction, in case there is ample evidence of destination to a blockaded port, and that the interposition of a neutral port of call does not, whatever acts may there be performed, change the destination. This also means the treatment of the cargo is to be determined by its actual destination at the time of visit. It makes no difference whether a cargo destined for the enemy is carried on a final stage of its journey by overland or oversea transportation, the destination of the cargo is the essential fact, not the means by which it may reach its destination. Of course, the belligerent is always liable for any seizures which may be made of vessels and cargoes having innocent destinations, and for improper seizures damages must be paid. Ample evidence would therefore be necessary to justify seizure." 10

(b) The question of the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage was one upon which great diversity of opinion existed at the International Naval Conference in 1908-09. It was at length decided that the doctrine could not, without grave dangers to neutral rights, and only with questionable military advantages, be applied to conditional contraband, and

10 Int. Law Topics, U. S. Naval War College, 1905, p. 106.

that with the limitation of the right of capture for breach of blockade to the "area of operations" it would be of little, if of any, service as applied to blockade.

It was, however, definitely recognized as applicable to absolute contraband, and a positive rule was enunciated in this regard:

"Article 30. Absolute contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined to territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy, or to the armed forces of the enemy. It is immaterial whether the carriage of the goods is direct, or entails either transshipment or transport over land." 11

11 Appendix, p. 579.

202. A neutral, acting in such manner as to identify himself with the belligerent, is guilty of unneutral service, and liable to the penalties which an enemy may receive under similar circumstances.

For a long time it was common to attempt to bring certain acts which a neutral should not as a neutral undertake under some phase of the doctrine of contraband. It was natural that this attempt should be made, as the idea of contraband was well developed before the modern idea of neutrality was clearly defined. Hall uses the term "Analogues of Contraband," but admits that for such services as he thus denominates the analogy to contraband is "always remote," and further says: "They are invariably something distinctly more, or something distinctly less, than the transport of contraband amounts to." 1

"Whatever the name, a considerable range of actions, involving neither the doctrine of contraband nor the doctrine of blockade, should have some distinguishing name. Various names have been from time to time given to some of these actions, such as 'accidental contraband,' 'analogues of contraband,' 'enemy service,' 'unneutral service,' etc. The terms involving the use of the word 'contraband' are admittedly inappropriate and forced. The term 'enemy service' would be ambiguous, because often used in a sense not involving any of the actions here discussed. The phrase 'unneutral service' seems to be the least ambiguous and most distinctly descriptive. The decisions of the courts and the opinions of writers point clearly to the fact that it is the nature of the service which 1 Hall, Int. Law (5th Ed.) p. 673.