It is generally agreed that neutral mail steamers and other vessels carrying the mails by agreement with neutral governments have in certain respects a peculiar position.  Their owners and captains cannot be held responsible for the nature of the numerous communications they carry.  It is equally well understood that a neutral may not transmit signals or messages for a belligerent, nor carry enemy’s despatches, nor transport certain classes of persons in the service of a belligerent.  But mail steamers may carry persons who pay for their passage in the usual way and come on board as ordinary passengers, even though they turn out to be officers of one or the other of the belligerents.  Although the tendency of modern times to exempt mail ships from visit and search and from capture and condemnation is not an assured restriction upon belligerent interests, it is a right which neutrals are entitled to demand within certain well-defined limits.  It was understood when this immunity was granted by the United States in 1862 that “simulated mails verified by forged certificates and counterfeit seals” were not to be protected.[45]

[Footnote 45:  Wheaton, International Law, Dana’s Ed., p. 659, note.]

During the controversy between the English and German Governments with reference to the seizure of the three German ships, Professor T.E.  Holland, the editor of the British Admiralty Manual of Prize Law of 1888, declared:  “The carriage by a neutral ship of troops, or of even a few military officers, as also of enemy despatches, is an enemy service of so important a kind as to involve the confiscation of the vessel concerned, a penalty which under ordinary circumstances, is not imposed upon the carriage of contraband property so called."[46] Under this head if would seem the alleged offense of the ship Bundesrath may properly be classed, and charges of a similar character were made against the ships General and Herzog.  It was suspected that persons on board variously described as of a military appearance were on their way to the Transvaal to enlist.  The suspicion, however, could not be proved, and the result was that the ships were released without guilt upon the charge of unneutral service or upon that of carrying contraband goods in the usual sense of the term contraband.

[Footnote 46:  International Law Situations, Naval War College, 1900, p. 98.  Also Arguments of Lord Stowell in the case of the Orozembo, 6 Rob. 430; and the Atlanta, 6 Rob. 440.]

In connection with the attitude of Great Britain in regard to the doctrine of continuous voyages as applied to both goods and persons bound for Delagoa Bay, it is interesting to note the view expressed by a leading English authority upon international law with reference to the seizure of the ship Gaelic by the Japanese Government during the Chino-Japanese War.  The Gaelic, a British mail steamer, was bound from the neutral port of San Francisco for the British port of Hongkong.  Information had reached Japan that there were on board persons seeking service with the Chinese Government and carrying a certain kind of material intended to destroy Japanese ships.