Count Von Buelow, the German Chancellor, speaking before the Reichstag with reference to the seizures of the German mail steamers said:  “We strove from the outset to induce the English Government in dealing with neutral vessels consigned to Delagoa Bay, to adhere to that theory of international law which guarantees the greatest security to commerce and industry, and which finds expression in the principle that for ships consigned from neutral states to a neutral port, the notion of contraband of war simply does not exist.  To this the English Government demurred.  We have reserved to ourselves the right of raising this question in the future, in the first place because it was essential to us to arrive at an expeditious solution of the pending difficulty, and secondly, because, in point of fact, the principle here set up by us has not met with universal recognition in theory and practice."[33]

[Footnote 33:  Sessional Papers, Africa, No.  I (1900), C 33; p. 25, Jan. 19, 1900.  Italics our own.]

Summing up what in the opinion of the German Government corresponded most closely with the general opinion of the civilized world, the Chancellor then declared:  “We recognize the rights which the Law of Nations actually concedes to belligerents with regard to neutral vessels and neutral trade and traffic.  We do not ignore the duties imposed by a state of war upon the ship owners, merchants, and vessels of a neutral state, but we require of the belligerents that they shall not extend the powers they possess in this respect beyond the strict necessities of war.  We demand of the belligerents that they shall respect the inalienable rights of legitimate neutral commerce, and we require above all things that the right of search and of the eventual capture of neutral ships and goods shall be exercised by the belligerents in a manner conformable to the maintenance of neutral commerce, and of the relations of neutrality existing between friendly and civilized nations."[34]

[Footnote 34:  Ibid., p. 25.]

This doctrine, namely, that “for ships consigned from neutral states to a neutral port, the notion of contraband simply does not exist,” clearly defined the contention of Great Britain that contraband which “at the time of seizure” was “consigned or intended to be delivered to an agent of the enemy at a neutral port, or, in fact, destined for the enemy’s country,” is liable to seizure and that both ship and cargo may be confiscated.[35] It also denied the English contention that “provisions on board ... destined for the enemy’s Government or agents, and ... also for the supply of troops or ... especially adapted for use as rations for troops” may be seized as contraband.[36]

[Footnote 35:  Ibid., p. 19; Salisbury to Lascelles, Jan. 10, 1900.]

[Footnote 36:  Ibid., p. 16; Admiralty to Harris, Jan. 8, 1900.]