[18] Cited, _Letters of Historicus_, p. 129:--‘It is a general understanding, grounded on true principles, that the Powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods, without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral Sovereign himself. It was contended on the part of the French nation, in 1796, that neutral Governments were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war to the belligerent Powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of the United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell, at home, to a belligerent purchaser, or carry themselves to the belligerent Powers, contraband articles, subject to the right of seizure _in transitu_. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judicial authorities of this country. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile Power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other with a criminal act.’ (_Commentaries_, vol. i., p. 142.) [19] Cited, _Letters of Historicus_, p. 177. [20] See p. 17. [21] Article 4 of the Declaration of London, which stated accurately the established doctrine. [22] From the Convention of 1901 between England and Russia, cited _Letters of Historicus_, p. 92. [23] From a speech of Lord Grenville, cited _Letters of Historicus_, p. 108. [24] On p. 2. [25] _Letters of Historicus_, pp. 165, 168. [26] _Letters of Historicus_, p. 132:--The following paragraph follows the quotation cited in the text:-- ‘The true doctrine is enforced with singular clearness and force by President Pierce, in his Message of December, 1854:-- “The laws of the United States do not forbid their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent Powers articles contraband of war, or to take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his property to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality, nor of themselves implicate the Government. Thus, during the progress of the present war in Europe, our citizens have, without national responsibility, therefore, sold gunpowder and arms to all buyers, regardless of the destination of those articles. Our merchantmen have been, and still continue to be, largely employed by Great Britain and France in transporting troops, provisions, and munitions of war, to the principal seat of military operations, and in bringing home the sick and wounded soldiers; but such use of our mercantile marine is not interdicted, either by international or by our municipal law, and, therefore, does not compromise our neutral relations with Russia.”’ [27] See p. 13. [28] The financial stability of the smaller States holds a very prominent position in the argument of _The Great Illusion_.