The capture of ship or cargo belonging to one belligerent by the armedships of the other is part of the fortune of warnor can the captor muchcomplain of having to bring his prize into a port for condemnationSo faras the captured vessel is concernedthis hardship is somewhat mitigatedby the practice of what is called 'ransoming.The commander willing to promisea definite sum for ship or cargo prepares a document which is called a 'RansomBill.It is drawn in duplicateThe capturing officer takes one copyandthe commander of the captured ship anotherand this ransom bill operatesas a safe-conduct to the captured vessel on her voyage to a separate port.
So far as relates to cruisers of the other belligerentshe enjoys immunityfrom their power of capturing her unless she has varied her course so asto raise suspicion of an intention to escape.
The real hardships of capture at seato which a large part of the worldis noteven nowreconciledare those affecting neutralsIf an enemy'sship at sea contains neutral cargothe neutral must submit to have his goodstaken into port for adjudicationand must of course forego opportunitiesof obtaining a favourable marketthough his goods are not liable to capture.
If a neutral ship contains admittedly enemy's cargothe captain must submitto have his goods transhippedThese rules are of much antiquityThey arefound in one of those treatises which are authorities on International Law,but which are older than its recognised beginningIn the Consolato delMare,which is supposed to contain the maritime usages of the seas whichformed part of the Mediterranean basinthere are various laws with referenceto the capture of neutral ships and neutral cargoand enemy's cargo in neutralbottomsThese seas werein the days in which these usages grew upfullof small commercial portsall manufacturing and exportingand not situatedat great distances from one anotherThe origin of the rule which we arediscussing exactly fits in with the relations of a certain number of smallsovereignties of this kindand that this is really the origin of the rulebefore us is indicated by provisions relating to the interruption of voyage,as for example by rules compelling the neutral ship to change her coursefor the port of the captorand providing that she shall have compensationfor her loss of timeThe condition of these seas which I have sketched --a number of small towns engaged in actual commercebut not separated fromone another by any great length of sea -goes far to explain this ancientmaritime lawbut as one maritime Power and another grew in strength andcame to value the advantages of neutralitythe discontent with these oldrules beganand a desire arose for a more general and ******r systemOne,in factwhich grew up was looked upon with much favourIt is often denotedby a sort of jingle which does not convey a real antithesis'Enemy ships,enemy goodsfree shipsfree goods.All the cargo found in a hostile vesselmay be made prizeif the vessel itself belong to a neutralall the goadsshall be treated as neutral property and shall not be liable to capture.
France was on one side with a severe rule confiscating the neutral ship whenany hostile cargo was carried in itwhile the Dutch were for a system morelenient to neutralsand finally France herself became patroness of thisrule.
Many treaties have been negotiated between civilised states which embodiedeither both these rules or one of thembut still the rule which enablesthe belligerent to capture hostile cargo wherever he finds itwas on thewhole that which lay at the base of International LawThe first seriousattempt to effect a general reform of this principle was undertaken at theclose of the Crimean warand in 185the Powers which had taken part in,or had been most directly interested inthat warissued what was calledthe Declaration of ParisAfter reciting that maritime law in time of warhad been the subject of deplorable disputesthat the uncertainty of thislaw gave rise to differences of opinion which might occasion serious differencesand even conflictsthe plenipotentiaries at Parisseeking to introduceinto international relations fixed principles on the subject before them,declare that they have adopted the following summary of the rules which theywish to see carried into practiceFirstprivateering is abolishedsecond,the neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband ofwarthirdneutral goodswith the exception of contraband of warare notliable to capture under the enemy's flagfourthblockades in order to bebinding must be electivethat is to saymaintained by a force sufficientreally to prevent access to the coast of the enemyThe net result showsthat the rulefree ships make free goodswas adoptedbut the other rulewhich has so often been coupled with itenemy ships make enemy goodswasnot adopted.
This Declaration was adhered to by all the Powers who had joined in theCrimean warand it seemed for awhile that it would receive the assent ofthe whole of the civilized worldthus forming the first great example ofa reform of the Law of Nations resting on the basis of expressly pledgedfaith instead of the older foundation of precedent and ancient ruleButon the Declaration being submitted to the United Statesthe Government ofthat country objected to the first article'Privateering is abolished.'
A privateer is an armed private ship commissioned by belligerent sovereignto depredate on the commerce of his enemyand rewarded by a share of thecapturewhich in recent times has amounted nearly to the whole of itThereason given for the refusal of the United States by MrMarcythe Secretaryof Statewas plausible enough.
