July 17, 1890, the Pacific Mail Steamship Company's steamer Colima arrived at San José, Guatemala, having on board a quantity of arms and ammunition in transit from San Francisco to a port in Salvador. At that time, the relations between Guatemala and Salvador were strained, armies of "observation" of the two countries confronting each other on the frontier. When the Colima arrived at San José, the Guatemalan authorities sought the consent of Mr. Mizner, the American minister, to the taking of the arms from the steamer as contraband of war, and proposed, if necessary, formally to declare war in order to seize the arms as contraband, the steamer meanwhile being detained till Mr. Mizner should hear from Washington. On July 20 Mr. Blaine instructed Mr. Mizner to demand the surrender of the Colima and her cargo, as she had been guilty of no offense against any existing treaty or against the law of nations. Before this message was received, however, the attention of the Guatemalan minister of foreign affairs was drawn to a stipulation in the contract between that Government and the steamship company, by which the latter agreed not to permit troops or munitions of war to be carried on its steamers from any of its ports of call to the ports of or adjacent to Guatemala, if there should be reason to believe that the materials might be used against Guatemala, or that war or pillage was intended. On the strength of this stipulation, it was agreed between the Guatemalan authorities and the officers of the steamship company, with Mr. Mizner's concurrence, that the arms and ammunition should be transshipped from the Colima to a steamer going north for the purpose of being provisionally detained at the company's storehouse at Acapulco, in Mexico. But, while the transshipment was in progress, the Guatemalan official who had charge of it compelled, by means of threats against the Colima, the conveyance of the arms to the shore, where they were seized by the Guatemalan authorities and some of them distributed among the troops. Mr. Mizner demanded that the arms should be returned to the company, with certain apologetic formalities. This was agreed to, and the arms were placed on board a steamer bound north on the 31st of August, but without any of the promised formalities. The United States declined to accept this as terminating the incident, and insisted that further reparation should be made for the irregular seizure of the arms and ammunition and for the indignity offered to the Colima. For. Rel. 1890, 32–35, 39, 40, 47, 54, 97, 142; For. Rel. 1891, 53-55, 59, 61, 66, 74, 82. II. WHAT ARTICLES ARE CONTRABAND. § 1250. According to Chief Justice Chase, contraband goods are divided into three classes: "Of these classes, the first consists of articles manufactured and primarily and ordinarily used for military purposes in time of war; the second, of articles which may be and are used for purposes of war or peace, according to circumstances; and the third, of articles exclusively used for peaceful purposes. "Merchandise of the first class, destined to a belligerent country or places occupied by the army or navy of a belligerent, is always contraband; merchandise of the second class is contraband only when actually destined to the military or naval use of a belligerent; while merchandise of the third class is not contraband at all, though liable to seizure and condemnation for violation of blockade or siege." The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28, 58. The foregoing classification is that which was made by Grotius, and which has been repeated by writers ever since his time. See Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, bk. 3, c. 1, sec. 5. See, also, note by Wherton, 1 Wheat. 389. In the draft convention, suggested on January 5, 1804, by Mr. Madison, Secretary of State, to Mr. Monroe, minister to England, occurs the following: "ART. IV. Contraband of war shall consist of the following articles only: Saltpeter, sulphur, cuirasses, pikes, swords, sword belts, knapsacks, saddles and bridles, cannon, mortars, firearms, pistols, bombs, grenades, bullets, firelocks, flints, matches, and gunpowder; excepting, however, the quantity of the said articles which may be necessary for the defense or use of the ship and those who compose the crew, and no other articles whatever, not here enumerated, shall be reputed contraband or liable to confiscation, but shall pass freely without being subjected to the smallest difficulty, unless they be enemy's property." Mr. Madison stated that this enumeration was "copied from the treaty of 1781 between Great Britain and Russia. It is sufficiently limited, and that treaty is an authority more likely than any other to be respected by the British Government." MS. Inst. U. States Ministers, VI. 161. "There is no accepted enumeration of the articles coming within the prohibition. And to add to the dangers of collision, the principle by which they are to be tested is so loosely defined that it is practically of little use, but to furnish a pretext when one is wanting, to enable parties at war to enlarge the contraband list at their pleasure. Some of the later and approved writers upon the law of nations, as Hautefeuille and Ortolan, object to this power of extension ad libitum, and the former particularly confines the list to objects of first necessity for war, and which are exclusively useful in its prosecution, and which can be directly employed for that purpose without undergoing any change that is to say, to arms and munitions of war." Mr. Cass, Sec. of State, to Mr. Mason, min to France, No. 190, June 27, 1859, MS. Inst. France, XV. 426. By the "armed neutrality" entered into during the American Revolutionary War by Russia, Denmark, and Sweden in 1780, “being the three northern powers from whose dominions chiefly the other maritime nations of Europe received supplies of timber and other naval stores," the effort was made "to strike these from the list of contraband, or by some means to exempt theni from capture." It was understood, however, at the time, that this was an exception from the law of nations. By this law" timber and other articles for the equipment of ships are contraband of war." Hence the recital of this principle in Jay's treaty ought to give no just cause of offense to France. Mr. Pickering, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pinckney, min. to England, Jan, 16, 1797, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 559. For the list of contraband under the armed neutrality, see the section on that subject, supra, § 1220. Marshall, referring, as Secretary of State, to the provision in the Jay treaty which embraced as contraband "whatever may serve directly to the equipment of vessels," complained that the British vice-admiralty courts, in construing the clause, appeared to consider it "as including whatever might by any possibility be applied to the equipment of vessels." Mr. Marshall, Sec. of State, to Mr. King, min. to England, Sept. 20, 1800, See, also, 5 American Law Review, 256. See note by Wheaton, 1 Wheat. 389. Tar was, as an article used in the building and equipment of ships, contraband in 1779. The Bird (1903), 38 Ct. Cl. 228. -"Of the continental writers, Hautefeuille contends for the absolute rule limiting contraband to such articles as are in their nautre of first necessity for war, substantially exclusively military in their use, and so made up as to be capable of direct and immediate use in war. (Tit. 8, § 2, tom. ii. 84, 191, 154, 412; tom. iii. 222.) Ortolan is of the same opinion, on principle, and contends that all modern treaties limit the application of contraband to articles directly and solely applicable to war; yet he admits that certain articles not actually munitions of war, but whose usefulness is chiefly in war, may, under circumstances, be contraband; as, sulphur, saltpetre, marine steammachinery, &c.; but coal, he contends, from its general necessity, is always free. (Tom. ii. ch. vi. 179-206.) Massé (Droit Comm., i. 209-211) admits that the circumstances may determine whether articles doubtful in their nature are contraband in the particular case; as the character of the port of destination, the quantity of goods, and the necessities and character of the war. The same view is taken by Tetens, a Swedish writer (Sur les Droits Récïproques, 111-113). Hubner (lib. ii. ch. i. §§ 8, 9), seems to be of the same opinion with Tetens and Massé. Klüber (§ 288) says that naval stores are not contraband; but adds, that, in case of doubt as to the quality of particular articles, the presumption should be in favor of the freedom of trade. "The subject is not affected by the declaration of Paris, of 1856." Dana's Wheaton, § 501, note 226, p. 631. Referring to a circular of the Department of State, No. 12, May 12, 1862, transmitting a proclamation of the President relaxing the blockade of certain ports, together with regulations as to trade with such ports; and also to circular No. 13, May 30, 1862, transmitting additional regulations, " together with a list of certain articles contraband of war, of which the importation was prohibited into ports the blockade of which had been relaxed by the President," Mr. Seward, April 26, 1864, instructed the diplomatic and consular officers of the United States that, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, considerations of a public nature required that the importation of coin or bullion from foreign countries into such ports should be entirely prohibited; and they were accordingly directed to add to the prohibited articles enumerated in circular No. 13 the words "coin " and "bullion.” Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to the diplomatic and consular officers of the During the war with Chile, the Peruvian authorities seized, while in transitu, at Callao, certain packages of blank paper currency, the property of American citizens, but destined for the Chilean Government. The property thus seized was at the time in charge of Messrs. Wells, Fargo & Company, of New York, as public carriers. Subsequently, apparently in retaliation for this seizure, the Chilean corvette Chacabuco, while off the port of Chimbote, took from the vessel 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, See, also, Mr. Blaine, Sec. of State, to Mr. Martinez, June 3, 1881, MS. The Chilean minister at Washington submitted, on March 19, 1883, a In |