II. THE NEUTRAL MERCHANT AND THE ‘FREEDOM OF THE SEA’ 49 III. COTTON AS CONTRABAND OF WAR 95 THE NEUTRAL MERCHANT I _THE NEUTRAL MERCHANT: THREE AMERICAN NOTES AND THE ANSWERS_ [_April 1915_] The ‘Letters of Historicus’--General Position of the Neutral Merchant--Use of Neutral Flags by Merchantmen to Escape Capture or Destruction--First American Note to Great Britain--British Interim Reply--The Complete Reply--First American Note to Germany--German Reply--Evolution of the Doctrines of Contraband of War and Blockade--Meaning of Neutrality--Contraband of War--Conditional Contraband--Declaration of Paris as to Freedom of Neutral Goods and of Enemy Goods under Neutral Flag--Prize Courts--The Conflicting Rights of Neutral Merchants and of Belligerents--The Right and Duty of Search--Doctrine of Continuous Voyages--Embargo--Blockade--The New Policy of the British Government--Foreign Enlistment--Proclamations of Neutrality. The intellectual barometer stands at ‘Hazy’ on the subject of neutrality, even in this country. In Germany it has ceased to register anything which even pretends to be intelligent. In the United States there are what might aptly be called cyclonic and anti-cyclonic disturbances. If my view as to English knowledge of the subject be questioned, I would ask my readers how often they have of late met in the newspapers the phrase ‘duties of neutrals,’ and what answer they have found to the inevitable query, ‘Which be they?’ Within the last few weeks I read a contribution to _The Times_ from ‘A Legal Correspondent,’ in which these duties were referred to in most bewildering fashion. He said that there existed special bonds between this country and the United States; that both have stringent Foreign Enlistment Acts; that both agree to what are known as the ‘Three Rules’ of the Washington Treaty as to the duties of neutrals, and that both had promised to bring these Rules to the notice of other States. This statement was painfully misleading; the ‘Three Rules’ were agreed to as the basis on which the Alabama arbitration was to be decided, and related solely to the subject known as ‘Foreign Enlistment.’[7] But if by ‘duties of neutrals’ is meant, as I presume to be the case, the duties of neutral Governments, they can be summarised in one great negative--to do nothing, except when they are called on to defend their neutrality against the action of either belligerent, _inter alia_, in the cases provided for by the Hague Convention of 1907 relating to neutrality. So far-reaching is this universal negative that it includes non-interference with their merchants in their dealings with belligerents.[8] If, however, the term refers to duties of neutral merchants, then it is inapt and misleadingly inaccurate; for the existence of any such general duty as to cease trading, for which the