present day, the distinction has not the same practical value as it may have had when iron was not used so extensively as it now is in naval construction. The treaties which place the objects referred to under absolute prohibition are very few in number. Amongst then may be cited the treaty concluded in 1743 between France and Denmark. That of 1803 between England and Sweden classes these articles as contraband by accident. Other treaties stipulate expressly for the freedom of articles used in ship-building. Holland took the initiative in this arbitrary measure in an Edict of 30th December, 1657. England followed her example in the course of the eighteenth century by means of Orders in Council. France followed suit during the War of Succession in Spain. It was unquestionably this practice which led to the express mention of the freedom of these articles in treaties, and not, as Jenkinson pretends, the opinion that as a general rule they were contraband of war. "III. Fuel and steam machinery. The possibility of relegating these articles to the prohibited class was first mooted about twenty years since, at the period of the introduction of steam in the military marine. Charcoal was included as steam fuel. M. Ortolan was the first to raise the question. It appears to us,' he wrote, that from the development and increased importance of steam in naval affairs, coal will be liable to be placed in the category of articles regarded as contraband of war, despite its great utility in industrial and pacific pursuits.' This was written in 1845. In 1849, M. Hauteville protested against the prohibition of coal, an article of general utility in the arts of peace. Most contemporary writers accept this view of the case, which is equally applicable to steam machinery. The coal question called forth the official declaration of the European Cabinets on the occasion of the war of 1859. A dispatch of the English Foreign Office, dated 18th May, 1-59, treated coal as liable under certain circumstances to be held as contraband of war. In the same light we must regard the declaration of the Austrian Government forbidding its exportation. The Cabinets of the Tuileries and Turin recognised the freedom of this article of commerce which has never figured in any treaty as contraband of war. "IV. Horses and cattle for draught and burthen. Many writers have classed horses as contraband of war. Galiani coincides in this opinion on account of their employment by the cavalry and artillery, He adds that mules should be ranked in the same category. In this case, the ox, the most pacific of quadrupeds, surely deserves equal honours with his fellow-labourers. In support of his view, Galiani cites a Roman law, the 'lex Julia,' forbidding the supply of horses for the advantage of the State's enemies. But this law was evidently a purely fiscal regulation, having no reference to contraband of war, of which there is no trace whatever in Roman legislation. Hubner observes that horses designed for cavalry and artillery remounts should be declared contraband of war; but then the question arises, how are they to be distinguished? "Most treaties stipulate for the prohibition of horses. As exceptions to the rule, we may cite the treaty of England with Russia in 1766-those of the armed neutrality-that of France and the United States in 1778, and some recently concluded between states on the American Continent. "V. Money and the precious metals. A few writers, amongst them Weis (Code Maritime Internationale) consider money and the precious metals generally as contraband of war, on account, as they explain, of their liability to be diverted in time of war to the purpose of procuring arms and other accessories of war. Grotius and Hubner make them contraband by accident. The only treaties which stipulate for their absolute prohibition are those conclu led as follows: between France and Spain, 1604; England and Spain, 1630; England and Holland, 1654; England and Sweden, 1803. "VI. Textile products and wearing apparel. Common cloth, canvas, and other stuffs ordinarily used for wear by the lower orders and the army, also ready-made clothes, are considered by a few writers to be contraband of war. Amongst the latter, we regret to say, is Weis, who gives no argument in support of his opinion. Hubner considers them contraband by accident. No treaty has hitherto prohibited this branch of commerce; indeed, the question is scarcely mooted in any treaty, and this abstention is a satisfactory guarantee of its freedom. It is a fundamental axio'n of international law that freedom of commerce between neutrals and belligerents is the rule, contraband the exception, and all not specified in this exception must be regarded as free. This freedom is guaranteed in treaties which, after enumerating contraband articles, stipulate for the freedom of neutral commerce in regard of all other descriptions of merchandize. Some even guarantee the freedom of clothing evidently made up for the use of troops. Such, at least, in the opinion of Hauteville, is the implied meaning of Article 25 in the Treaty of 1783 between France and England, which runs as follows: "On ne mettra pas au nombre des marchandises défendus celles qui suivent, savoir, toutes sorts de draps et tous autres ouvrages de manufactures de laine, de lin, de soie, de coton et de toute autre nature-tous genres d'habillements avec les choses qui servent ordinairement pour les faire." "VII. Articles of Food. Amongst the writers who have placed articles of food under the head of contraband of war, the foremost place belongs to Heineccius (De Navibus, &c.) He gives no special reason for his thesis; he derives it from the right of a belligerent to interfere with anything which may serve to strengthen his oppenent. We need only remark here that the principle upon which this thesis is based in an erroneous one." In other places this writer frequently compounds contraband of war with contraband of commerce, and applies to the former the rules generally restricted to the latter Cocciqius, Selden, Loccennius and a few other modern publicists, Weis, amongst others, sanction the prohibition of the import of grain. Grotius and Hubner include the latter under the head of contraband by accident. But the generality of publicists, and nearly all those of our era, will not admit of its prohibition under any circumstances. "It may be accepted as a general rule," M. Basily observes in conclusion, "that the law of treaties guarantee the freedom of commerce in articles of food." After briefly passing in review the opinions of various writers who have treated the subject, M. Basily comes to the conclusion that the custom of defining certain articles of merchandize to be contraband by accident is opposed to the strict fundamental principles of international law. All articles of commerce should, he holds, be classed under one or other of the two first categories of Grotius. He denies the right of a belligerent to decide in which category any particular article or articles should be placed, and he maintains that contraband of war should be circumscribed within the limits prescribed by international law, and that these limits should not be arbitrarily enlarged to the prejudice of the commerce of neutral powers, nor even of the peaceable portion of the population of the belligerent states. He considers that the treaty of 1766 between England and Russia, the treaties made under the armed neutrality, the Convention Maritime of 1801, and the great number of treaties recently concluded between various States afford a correct enumeration of the objects fairly recognizable as contraband of war. These he gives as follows: 1. "Weapons offensive and defensive, such as guns, pistols, swords, bayonets, &c., and their accessories, powder, shot, guncarriages and the like. 2. "Vessels of war properly so called, i.e., vessels fitted or designed for purposes of attack and defence, but not vessels of any particular burthen or dimensions. 3. "Saltpetre, sulphur, lead and cast iron, for while it is admitted that the latter are employed in times of peace, and are not used directly in war, yet they serve for the fabrication of articles included under the first head. Wood-charcoal cannot be so included as, although used in the manufacture of gunpowder, it is strictly one of the necessaries of life. Coal cannot be included, it is strictly one of the vital forces of modern productive industry. "While we admit the prohibition of saddlery, with which most European countries could dispense without serious inconvenience although it is of the highest importance to an army, we cannot extend the prohibition of horses, on account of the services they render to the non-combatant population. Here let us observe that the prohibition of saddlery is only admissible in European countries-in others, where from the nature of the communications U. S. MAG. No. 505, Dec., 1870. NN journeys are ordinarily performed on horseback, articles of saddlery possess a larger share of utility, and cannot, in accordance with any rational theory, be admitted into the category of prohibited articles." M. Basily holds that the error into which all writers who have hitherto treated the subject have fallen, is that of insisting upon a mere competitive right of a neutral to carry what he pleases, and of a belligerent to seize what he pleases on the ground that its carriage is likely to be injurious to himself. The rights and relative obligations of both parties should, he thinks, be strictly defined in accordance with the broad principles of Justice and Morality; and these rights and obligations cannot, he adds, be modified on the grounds of political Necessity. Such a plea mav be accepted for non fulfilment of an obligation or duty, but it cannot affect the question of right and wrong. In the foregoing pages we have endeavoured to place before our readers a brief sketch of the author's views respecting Contraband of War, and in our next number we shall give in extenso his opinions upon certain points which possess a peculiar professional interest, viz.: 1. The acts which constitute a breach of neutrality in respect of contraband of war. 2. The measures allowable for the repression of such acts. (To be concluded in our next.) A WEEK IN CAMP. BY CAPTAIN R. D. GIBNEY. My object in writing this is twofold, first to let the country know through these pages that a camp, as a means of instruction to a battalion of Rifle Volunteers, is useless, and in the second place to inform the War Office authorities that no further time must be lost in reorganizing that branch of the Reserve termed "Volunteer Force." I speak from experience. Last summer I had one week of camp life in command of the 12th Administrative Battalion, Independentshire Rifle Volunteers and I must trust to being excused in thus publicly exposing their ignorance of duty and lack of discpline. I do not suppose the Battalion of Rifle Volunteers under my command is less amenable to discipline than others or less well instructed; but with war raging so short a distance away from our shores, and with the universal cry for arming, to say nothing of the introduction of new and utterly incomprehensible drill principles, it behoves all interested to discover and expose shortcomings, and offer a remedy. Authority must be supported and respected. It is a matter of far more moment that the authority of a commanding officer be recognised by juniors, than, that these juniors are useful and efficient. The present system in all our services of trusting to individual intelligence is wrong. It precludes respect for superiors, is injurious to discipline, and creates confusion. The Volunteer Force is more in need of reform than any other. It was raised in a hurry, petted, feared, spoiled, and is now little else than a shooting club for men of small means, and a well paid resting place for used up regular officers, who flourish on its staff as inspectors and adjutants. Of these first I will not speak for the present, but of the second I say at once that they are neither useful nor ornamental, and that were their duties done by persons in an inferior position they would be not only better done, but at a much less cost to the country; and this (in these economical days) is surely a matter of no small consideration. It is impossible for a regiment to respect its senior officers and to obey them implicitly when much of the authority is vested in the adjutant, and this officer ranking as a captain. To give this appointment to any above the rank of a non-commissioned officer is, as I have intimated above, a mistake; but to give it to men who have been as a general rule formerly in the regular army, and oftentimes holding the rank of field officers and captains, is worse than a blunder. The permission "to serve with the rank of captain" is not appreciated by them, nor understood by the Force; and the mixture of trust, suspicion, contempt, and obedience required from them by the authorities, renders these adjutants overbearing, and oftentimes inclined to set aside the authority of field officers in command. The inspection of Volunteer corps by regular officers is a mistake. These are always prejudiced men, incapable of making due allowance for shortcomings, and too apt to wink at the introduction of those habits of superciliousness and extravagance, which makes most military men detestable, and given to personal enjoyment. It seems to me fairer to the force that the inspection of a Volunteer Battalion (if inspection at all be necessarry) should be undertaken by Volunteer officers only, and that all staff appointments connected with this branch of the reserve be filled by Volunteers. Be all this as it may, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there is something wanting in the Volunteer Force. The daily papers team with articles on our shortcomings, and each writer brings forward a panacea. Some are for a more thorough amalgamation with the regular army. Not a few for disbanding us altogether; some for schools of instructions for officers, or for catching all half pay officers and making them serve (God forbid), and some for permanent encampments. These first are all bad enough, but the last, that of camps, is useless and expensive, unfair to men and officers. In them nothing is attained by the |