on which they were being transported, in charge of Messrs. Wells, Fargo & Company, certain cases of blank paper currency destined for the Peruvian Government. Against the seizure by the Peruvian authorities, the United States protested, both on the ground that the goods in question were not embraced in the definition of contraband in the treaty between the two countries, and that the seizure was besides a violation of the stipulation in the treaty of 1856 between the United States and Peru forbidding the seizure of enemy's property in neutral ships. A similar protest was addressed to the Chilean Government against the seizure by the Chacabuco. It appears that the Peruvian Government, in response to the protest of the United States, restored the property, which was afterwards duly delivered by the carriers to the Chilean Government. The Chilean Government, however, put into enforced circulation in Peru the notes seized by the Chacabuco, requiring all persons to accept it at its full face value in exchange for property taken and used by the Chilean forces. A claim against Chile in behalf of Messrs. Wells, Fargo & Company was subsequently presented to the United States and Chilean Claims Commission under the convention of August 7, 1892, and by consent of the agents of the two Governments, and at the request of the claimants, a compromise award was entered in their favor for upwards of $29,000, United States gold.

Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Osborn, min. to Chile, No. 110, Oct. 29,
1880, MS. Inst. Chile, XVI. 295; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, IV. 3744.
Writing to the Chilean minister at Washington, May 18, 1881, and refer-
ring to his contention that money or its representative might under
certain circumstances be regarded as contraband of war, Mr. Blaine,
as Secretary of State, said that the minister did not specify the cir-
cumstances under which money might be so regarded, nor refer to the
statements of writers or the decisions of prize courts where the doc-
trine had been maintained. "Diligent but fruitless search," said Mr.
Blaine, "has here been made for them." He also adverted to the
stipulation in the treaty between England and France of 1786 that
"gold, silver, coined or uncoined," should not be deemed contraband
of war. The treaty between the United States and Chile of 1832, said
Mr. Blaine, restricted contraband to implements and munitions of
war, and did not include in that category paper money and postage
stamps. He expressed the opinion that an acknowledgment of the
Chilean claim would establish an inconvenient precedent. (Mr.
Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Martinez, MS. Notes to Chilean Leg. VI.
269.)

See, also, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Martinez, June 3, 1881, MS.
Notes to Chilean Leg. VI. 274.

The Chilean minister at Washington submitted, on March 19, 1883, a
detailed statement of the case, with many quotations from inter-
national texts. To this statement no reply appears to have been
made till April 11, 1885, when Mr. Bayard addressed a note on the
subject to the Chilean minister. The most of this note was devoted
to the question of title to the property at the time of seizure. In
H. Doc. 551—vol 7- 43

Souky podameng i de semnat peo a Mr. Barani adverted to
Ĉ the wire the pot of Chimbote, to

TIME TOP TA! Vis 1′′ṛamang bend was in the possession of the
fat recurry, if in vol (ezzally have been
MENHTHŽ Cod vas o he reminded as boring wased to be
In this relation, he cited

Ć TO ANT and The Diverte in Bielowa's Admiralty Re-
naas citedest echoilies an urgent

OT 21 7 120g at eat the Persian Government
Kobasidio as ectraland of war. No

support of that pretension, which can sly be ableized that with the of hell gerents may require an addition

to the arba bent fi de marked as motraband of war." (Mr. Bizant See, of State, to Mr. Godoy, Chilean min, April 11, 1885, MS. Notes & Clas Le VI. STO

Money, Elver plate, and billion, when destined for hostile use or for the purchase of hostile supplies, being contraband of war, where a foreign vessel entered New Orleans under the license of the Pre-ident's proclamation of May 12, 1972, the determination of the question as to whether articles of this class, part of her outward-bound cargo, were contraband, devolved upon the Federal general commanding in that city. Believing them to be so, he was authorized to order them to be removed from her, and her clearance to be withheld until his order should be complied with.

United States r. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520.

Printing presses, materials, and paper, and postage stamps, belonging to the enemy, and intended for his immediate use, are contraband. The Bermuda, 3 Wall. 514, 552.

Artillery harness, men's army bluchers, artillery boots, government regulation gray blankets, are, when they have a hostile destination, contraband.

The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28, 58; cited in 5 Am. Law Rev. 259.

In numerous treaty provisions, as in that between the United States and France of 1778 (art. 24), "horses," or "horses with their furniture," are classed as contraband.

See Lee, At. Gen., 1796, 1 Op. 61.

Horses, saltpetre and sulphur may be placed first as subjects of the widest usage. It has always been the practice of England and France to regard horses as contraband; in a very large number of treaties they are expressly included; in none are they excluded except a few contracted by Russia, and in those between the United

States and other American countries, the latter however confining the prohibition to cavalry mounts."

Hall, Int. Law (5th ed.), 657.

The preponderance of authority at the end of the eighteenth century was that horses were presumptively contraband, and that a shipment of horses to a port of a belligerent was presumptively for military uses.

The Atlantic (1901), 37 Ct. Cl. 17.

In this case there were 38 horses on a vessel of 85 tons burden. But, in another case, where there were only 5 horses on a vessel of 98 tons burden, the rest of the cargo, consisting of cattle and fowls, and the port of destination was neither besieged, blockaded, nor, so far as was known, garrisoned, it was held that the horses would not be presumed to have been intended for military use. (The Juno, 38 Ct. Cl. 465.)

April 29, 1898, the Italian ambassador at Madrid was orally advised that instructions had been issued to Spanish naval officers temporarily to suspend, in regard to sulphur, the application of the royal decree of April 23, concerning contraband of war. This resolution was confirmed by a note of May 31, 1898, the Spanish Government reserving the right to restore sulphur to the contraband list, should its interests require it, but promising not to do so without sufficient notice, so that pending contracts might be performed. The Italian ambassador replied June 3, 1898, accepting the notification of Spain's resolution, but expressly reserving the question of principle. It was understood to be the opinion of the Italian Government that sulphur could not properly be considered as contraband of war, since it was used in many innocent arts and had ceased to be an ingredient of the higher class of gunpowders.

June 8, 1898, there appeared in the official Imperial Gazette, at Berlin, an announcement that the Spanish ambassador had informed the German Government that sulphur, which had been included in the royal decree of April 23 as contraband of war, was no longer to be so considered.

Mr. Draper, ambass. at Rome, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, No. 227, June 9,
1898; Mr. Iddings, chargé at Rome, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, No.
251, July 16, 1898, MS. Desp. from Italy.

Mr. White, ambass. at Berlin, to Mr. Day, Sec. of State, June 11, 1898,
MS. Desp. from Germany.

See, also, Mr. Moore, Act. Sec. of State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, British
ambass., July 2, 1898, MS. Notes to Brit. Leg. XXIV. 241.

The master of a ship, who, just prior to the war between the United States and Spain, had taken on board at Port Empedocle, Sicily, a quantity of sulphur for New York, was justified, on hearing that war had begun, in unloading the sulphur and storing it in a warehouse,

and was not obliged to delay his voyage and reship the sulphur because of reports in the press that Spain, as afterwards proved to be the case, would revoke her declaration that sulphur was contraband of

war.

The Styria v. Morgan (1902), 186 U. S. 1.

With reference to the proposal in the negotiations at Peking in 1901 to prohibit China from importing articles used in the manufac ture of arms and munitions of war, the American diplomatic representative was instructed: "The materials principally employed in the manufacture of arms and ammunition are reported by the War Department to be as follows: Brass, copper, tin, niter, lead, charcoal, guncotton, sulphur, alcohol, nitroglycerine, sulphuric acid, nitric acid. picric acid, mercuric fulminate, raw cotton; steel tubes and hoops. forged and oil tempered. . The prohibition of several of the materials mentioned, would, unless destined for arms and ammunition factory, be impossible. The object would seem to be the prevention of the setting up of plants. The exclusion of gun and cartridge machinery would be necessary, but this inhibition is not regarded by the United States as important.”

Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Rockhill, special commissioner, tel., March 19, 1901, For. Rel. 1901, App. 365.

"It has been held by this country, and our officers have been so instructed, that the term 'contraband of war' includes only articles having belligerent destination and purpose. Such articles have been classed under these two heads:—

"1. Those that are primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes in time of war, e. g., arms and munitions of war, military material, &c.—articles of this kind being usually described as absolutely contraband.

"2. Those that may be, and are, used for peaceful or warlike purposes according to circumstances, such articles being usually described as conditionally contraband.

"Articles of the first class destined for ports of the enemy or places occupied by his forces are always contraband of war. Articles of the second class are contraband of war only when actually and especially destined for the military or naval forces of the enemy. Coal and provisions are among the articles which are only conditionally contraband.”

Lord Lansdowne, British Sec. for For. Aff., to Sir C. Hardinge, British ambass. at St. Petersburg, Aug. 10, 1904, Parl. Papers, Russia, No. 1 (1905), 13.

III. GOVERNMENTAL LISTS.

§ 1251.

"6. The following things are considered contraband of war: "Portable arms and artillery, mounted or in detached pieces; ammunition for firearms, such as projectiles, fuses, balls, priming, cartridges, cartridge tubes, powder, saltpeter, sulphur; the material and ammunition of explosive instruments, such as mines, torpedoes, dynamite, pyroxylin, and other fulminating substances; the material of artillery, either for fortifications or for the field, such as carriages, caissons, cartridge chests, campaign forges, canteens, pontoons, etc.; objects of military equipment and dress, such as cartridge-boxes, knapsacks, armor, sappers implements, drums, saddles and harness, articles of military dress, tents, etc., and in general all objects destined to land or sea forces.

"Such objects, when found on board neutral vessels and destined to an enemy port, may be seized and confiscated, save the quantity which is necessary for the ship on which the seizure is made.

"7. The following acts are assimilated to contraband of war, and are forbidden to neutrals: The transportation of enemy troops, and that of dispatches and correspondence of the enemy, and the furniture of enemy ships of war.

"Neutral ships taken in the commission of the offense of such contraband may, according to the circumstances, be seized and even confiscated."

Translation of Russian Decree, relating to Privateering, Neutral Trade,
and Blockades, May 13/25, 1877, 68 Br. & For. State Papers, 924, 925.
The original text is as follows:

6. Sont réputés contrebande de guerre les objets suivants :
Les armes portatives et d'artillerie, montées ou en pièces détachées; les
munitions d'armes à feu, telles que projectiles, fusées d'obus, balles,
amorces, cartouches, tubes de cartouches, poudre, salpêtre, soufre;
le matériel et les munitions de pièces explosibles, telles que mines,
torpilles, dynamite, pyroniline et autres substances fulminantes;
le matériel de l'artillerie, du génie et du train, tels que affûts, cais-
sons, caisses de cartouches, forges de campagne, cantines, pontons,
etc.; les objets d'équipement et d'habillement militaire, tels que giber-
nes, cartouchières, sacs, cuirasses, outils de sape, tambours, selles et
harnais, pièces d'habillement militaire, tentes, etc., et en général
tous les objets destinés aux troupes de terre ou de mer.
Ces objets, lorsqu'ils sont trouvés à bord de navires neutres et destinés
à un port ennemi, peuvent être saisis et confisqués, sauf la quantité
qui est nécessaire au navire sur lequel est opérée la saisie.

7. Sont assimilés à la contrebande de guerre les actes suivants, interdits
aux neutres: le transport de troupes ennemies, celui de dépêches
et de la correspondance de l'ennemi, la fourniture de navires de guerre
à l'ennemi.

Les navires neutres pris en flagrant délit de semblable contrebande peuvent être, selon les circonstances, saisis et même confisqués.