ing all relevant information about the vessels under his protection. A written declaration is required, because it prevents all ambiguities and misunderstandings, and because it pledges to a greater extent the responsibility of the commander. The object of such a declaration is to make search unnecessary by the mere fact of giving to the cruiser the information which the search itself would have supplied. In the majority of cases the cruiser will be satisfied with the declaration which the commander of the convoy will have given to her, but she may have serious grounds for believing that the confidence of the commander has been abused, as, for example, that a ship under convoy of which the papers are apparently in order and exhibit nothing suspicious is, in fact, carrying contraband cleverly concealed. The cruiser may, in such a case, communicate her suspicions to the commander of the convoy, and an investigation may be considered necessary. If so, it will be made by the commander of the convoy, since it is he alone who exercises authority over the vessels placed under his protection. It appeared, nevertheless, that much difficulty might often be avoided if the belligerent were allowed to be present at this investigation; otherwise he might still suspect, if not the good faith, at least the vigilance and perspicacity of the person who conducted the search. But it was not thought that an obligation to allow the officer of the cruiser to be present at the investigation should be imposed upon the commander of the convoy. He must act as he thinks best; if he agrees to the presence of an officer of the cruiser, it will be as an act of courtesy or good policy. He must in every case draw up a report of the investigation and give a copy to the officer of the cruiser. Differences of opinion may occur between the two officers, particularly in relation to conditional contraband. The character of a port to which a cargo of corn is destined may be disputed. Is it an ordinary commercial port, or is it a port which serves as a base of supply for the armed forces? The situation which arises out of the mere fact of the convoy must in such a case be respected. The officer of the cruiser can do no more than make his protest, and the difficulty must be settled through the diplomatic channel. The situation is altogether different if a vessel under convoy is found beyond the possibility of dispute to be carrying contraband. The vessel has no longer a right to protection, since the condition upon which such protection was granted has not been fulfilled. Besides deceiving her own government, she has tried to deceive the belligerent. She must therefore be treated as a neutral merchant vessel encountered in the ordinary way and searched by a belligerent cruiser. She can not complain at being exposed to such rigorous treatment, since there is in her case an aggravation of the offense committed by a carrier of contraband. Report of committee which drafted Declaration of London. Although the vessels of the one and of the other party may navigate freely and with all safety, as is explained in the 7th article, they shall, nevertheless, be bound, at all times when required, to exhibit, as well on the high sea as in port, their passports and certificates above mentioned; and, not having contraband merchandize on board for an enemy's port, they may freely and without hindrance pursue their voyage to the place of their destination. Nevertheless, the ex hibition of papers shall not be demanded of merchant-ships under the convoy of vessels of war, but credit shall be given to the word of the officer commanding the convoy. Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded between the United States and If, in any future war at sea, the contracting Powers resolve to remain neuter, and as such to observe the strictest neutrality, then it is agreed that if the merchant ships of either party should happen to be in a part of the sea where the ships of war of the same nation are not stationed, or if they are met on the high sea, without being able to have recourse to their own convoys, in that case the commander of the ships of war of the other party, if required, shall, in good faith and sincerity, give them all necessary assistance; and in such case the ships of war and frigates of either of the Powers, shall protect and support the merchant-ships of the other: provided, nevertheless, that the ships claiming the assistance are not engaged in any illicit commerce contrary to the principle of the neutrality. Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded between the United States and To ensure to the vessels of the two contracting parties the advantage of being readily and certainly known in time of war, it is agreed that they shall be provided with the sea-letters and documents hereafter specified: 1. A passport, expressing the name, the property, and the burthen of the vessel, as also the name and dwelling of the master, which passport shall be made out in good and due form, shall be renewed as often as the vessel shall return into port, and shall be exhibited whensoever required, as well in the open sea as in port. But if the vessel be under convoy of one or more vessels of war, belonging to the neutral party, the simple declaration of the officer commanding the convoy, that the said vessel belongs to the party of which he is, shall be considered as establishing the fact, and shall relieve both parties from the trouble of further examination. Treaty of Amity and Commerce concluded between the United States and ** and if the commander of a ship of war of either party shall have other ships under his convoy, the declaration of the commander shall alone be sufficient to exempt any of them from examination. Treaty of Peace and Friendship, concluded between the United States and It is further agreed that the stipulations above expressed relative to the visiting and examination of vessels shall apply only to those which sail without convoy; and when said vessels shall be under convoy, the verbal declaration of the commander of the convoy, on his word of honor, that the vessels under his protection belong to the nation whose flag he carries, and when they may be bound to an enemy's port that they have no contraband goods on board, shall be sufficient. Treaty of Peace, Amity, Navigation and Commerce concluded between the It is further agreed that the stipulations above expressed, relative to the visiting and examination of vessels, shall apply only to those which sail without convoy; and when said vessels shall be under convoy, the verbal declaration of the commander of the convoy, on his word of honor, that the vessels under his protection belong to the nation whose flag he carries, and, when they are bound to an enemy's port, that they have no contraband goods on board, shall be sufficient. Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation concluded between the United States and Bolivia, May 13, 1858, Article XXIII. It is agreed that the stipulations contained in the present treaty relative to the visiting and examining of a vessel shall apply only to those which sail without a convoy; and when said vessels shall be under convoy the verbal declaration of the commander of the convoy, on his word of honor, that the vessels under his protection belong to the nation whose flag he carries, and when bound to an enemy's port, that they have no contraband goods on board, shall be sufficient. Treaty of Commerce and Navigation concluded between the United States and Italy, February 26, 1871, Article XIX. When neutral merchant vessels are convoyed, they shall not be visited, if the commander of the convoying vessel sends to the vessel of the belligerent which has stopped it, a list of the convoyed vessels, and a declaration signed by him showing that they do not carry any contraband of war, and showing the nationality and destination of the convoyed vessels. Institute, 1882, p. 48. Vessels convoyed by a neutral war-ship are not subject to visit except in so far as permitted by the rules relating to convoys. Institute, 1913, p. 181. Contra. The very act of sailing under a belligerent or neutral convoy, for the purpose of resisting search, is a violation of neutrality. Kent, vol. 1, p. 162. Contra. This history of practices, conventions, and opinions is enough to show that international law does not prohibit search of convoyed vessels, nor substitute the word of the commander for actual search. Note 242, Dana's Wheaton. Since the peace of 1815, European treaties have generally, except where England was a party, stipulated for the exemption of merchant vessels, under the convoy of public ships of the same state. The treaties which the United States have made with foreign powers, both before and since that period, have generally provided that in case of convoy, the declaration of the commander of the convoy, that the vessels under his protection belong to the nation whose flag he carries, and when bound to an enemy's port, that they have no contraband goods on board, shall be sufficient. Halleck, p. 615. Recent continental publicists, have generally contended that neutral convoy exempts the convoyed vessel from visitation and search. Some have stated this proposition in general terms, while others limit it to merchant vessels convoyed by ships of war of their own nation, and put it on the ground that the declaration of the commander is sufficient as to the character and cargoes of the vessels of his own country under his escort and protection. Such are the general views of Martens, Rayneval, Klüber, Heffter, Massé, and Ortolan. Rayneval, however, is of the opinion that if the belligerent vessel should inform the convoying commander that he has evidence that one or more of the vessels under his escort are liable to capture for being really enemy's vessels, or because they have on board contraband goods, destined to an enemy's port, the commander should immediately proceed, in concert with the belligerent cruiser, to verify the truth of these allegations. This opinion is concurred in by Ortolan; but Hautefeuille thinks that such examination, if made, should be by the neutral officer only, and that his word, as to the character of his convoy, must suffice. This author has discussed the question of convoy at great length, and with marked ability. It must, however, be remembered, that he attempts to represent what ought to be the rule of international law on this subject, rather than what that law really is at the present time. English text-writers have adopted the opinion of Sir William Scott, with respect to the right to visit and search vessels under neutral convoy, and the effect of such convoy, when it tended to impede and defeat this belligerent right. Manning denies that neutrals, under convoy, can claim, under the general law of nations, to be exempted from search, as a matter of right, but he deems it desirable that it should be accorded to them by agreement. The United States have uniformly favored the rule of exemption, and have, whenever possible, introduced it into their treaties with other powers. It must, however, be stated that American publicists have generally admitted that the exemption can not be claimed as a matter of law, and that an attempt in this way to impede search will incur a penalty. Halleck, pp. 615, 116. The right of convoy, although not yet a part of international law, apparently approaches such a destiny, as it is now received by many jurists, and engrafted into the conventional law of almost all nations. Whether, as some put it, the word of honor of the commander of the convoying vessel ought to be sufficient proof, may fairly be doubted. The French orders to their naval officers, issued in 1854, for the war with Russia, deserve notice for contemplating this point. "You shall not," say they, "visit vessels which are under the convoy of an allied or neutral ship of war, and shall confine yourselves to calling upon the commander of the convoy for a list of the ships placed under his protection, together with his written declaration that they do not belong to the enemy, and are not engaged in any illicit commerce. If, however, you have occasion to suspect that the commander of the convoy has been imposed upon (que la religion du commandant du convoi a été surprise), you must communicate your suspicions to that officer, who should proceed alone to visit the suspected vessel." On the ground of mere justice this right cannot be defended. It is said that the commander of the convoying vessel represents the state, and the state guarantees that nothing illicit has been put on board the merchantmen. But how can the belligerent know whether a careful search was made before sailing, whether the custom-house did not lend itself to deception? It is only by comity that national vessels are allowed their important privileges; how, except by a positive and general agreement, can those privileges be still further extended, so as to limit the belligerent right of search? On the ground of international good-will, however, the right is capable of defense, and, so far as we can see, except where the protected fleet is far separated by a storm from its guardian,-in which case, we suppose the ordinary right of search must be resumed, can be exercised in the interests of belligerents as well as neutrals. Woolsey, pp. 363, 364. Contra. * * * 串 But it is a controverted point whether neutral merchant vessels are liable to be visited, and are bound to suffer the visit, when sailing under convoy of ships of war of their own nation. There can be no question that the practice of visiting convoyed vessels had been universal until 1871; and that frequent treaties, in specifying the formalities to be observed, without limiting the extent of the right, had incidentally shown that the parties to them regarded the current usage as authoritative. Since then [1814] France has accepted the principle of this freedom from visit in six treaties, all with American republics; and the United States have embodied it in thirteen treaties, of which all, with two exceptions, have also been entered into with states on the same continent. But there has already been occasion to remark more than once that the treaties entered into by the United States afford little clue to the views entertained in that country; and on this point, as usually, English and American writers and judges are fully in accord. On the continent of Europe, Germany, Austria, Spain, and Italy, in addition to the Baltic powers and France, provide by their naval regulations that the declaration of a convoying officer shall be accepted. Great Britain on the other hand adheres to the practice upon which she has always acted. Continental jurists are almost unanimous in maintaining the exemption from visit of convoyed ships, not only as a principle to be advocated, but as an established rule of law. That it has any pretension to be so is evidently inadmissible; the assertion of it, and the practice, which have been described, are insufficient both in kind and degree to impose a duty on dissenting states; and it cannot even be granted that the doctrine possesses a reasonable theoretic basis. The only basis indeed on which it seems to be founded is one which, in declaring that the immunity from visit possessed by a ship of war extends itself to the vessels in her company, begs the whole question at issue. It is more to the purpose to consider whether the privilege claimed by neutrals is fairly consistent with the interests of belligerents, and whether it would be likely in the long run to be to the advantage of neutral states themselves. It is argued that the commander of a vessel of war in charge of a convoy represents his government, that his affirmation pledges the faith of his nation, and that |