dividuals in the enemy's country
should be necessarily free from seizure and condemnation, since
provisions and such articles of dual use, though intended for the
military or naval forces of the enemy, would obviously, under such
circumstances, be addressed to private individuals, possibly agents or
contractors for the naval or military authorities.

Lord Lansdowne in answer stated that while H.M. government did not
contend that the mere fact that the consignee was a private person
should necessarily give immunity from capture, they held that to take
vessels for adjudication merely because their destination was the
enemy's country would be vexatious, and constitute an unwarrantable
interference with neutral commerce. To render a vessel liable to such
treatment there should be circumstances giving rise to a reasonable
suspicion that the provisions were destined for the enemy's forces, and
it was in such a case for the captor "to establish the fact of
destination for the enemy's forces before attempting to procure their
condemnation" (September 30, 1904).

The protests of Great Britain led to the reference of the subject by the
Russian government to a departmental committee, with the result that on
October 22, 1904, a rectifying notice was issued declaring that articles
capable of serving for a warlike object, including rice and food-stuffs,
should be considered as contraband of war, if they are destined for the
government of the belligerent power or its administration or its army or
its navy or its fortresses or its naval ports; or for the purveyors
thereof; and that in cases where they were addressed to private
individuals these articles should not be considered as contraband of
war; but that in all cases horses and beasts of burden were to be
considered as contraband. As regards cotton, explanations were given by
the Russian government (May 11, 1904) that the prohibition of cotton
applied only to raw cotton suitable for the manufacture of explosives,
and not to yarn or tissues.

Analogues of contraband.

The carriage of belligerent despatches connected with the conduct of a
war or of persons in the service of a belligerent state falls within the
prohibition of contraband traffic, but to distinguish such traffic from
that of contraband, properly so called, the term applied to it in
international law is "analogues of contraband." The penalty attaching to
such carriage necessarily varies according to the degree of