of 1907, Art.

7 of which lays down that "a neutral Power is _not_ bound to prevent the export or transit, for the use of either belligerent, of arms, ammunition, or, in general, of anything which could be of use to an army or fleet." CONTRABAND OF WAR Sir,--As a good deal of discussion is evidently about to take place as to the articles which may be properly treated as contraband of war, and, in particular, as to coal being properly so treated, I venture to think that it may be desirable to reduce this topic (a sufficiently large one) to its true dimensions by distinguishing it from other topics with which it is too liable to be confused.
Articles are "contraband of war" which a belligerent is justified in intercepting while in course of carriage to his enemy, although such carriage is being effected by a neutral vessel.

Whether any given article should be treated as contraband is, in the first instance, entirely a question for the belligerent Government and its Prize Court.
A neutral Government has no right to complain, of hardships which may thus be incurred by vessels sailing under its flag, but is bound to acquiesce in the views maintained by the belligerent Government and its Courts, unless these views involve, in the language employed by Lord Granville in 1861, "a flagrant violation of international law." This is the beginning and end of the doctrine of contraband.

A neutral Government has none other than this passive duty of acquiescence.

Its neutrality would not be compromised by the shipment from its shores, and the carriage by its merchantmen, of any quantity of cannon, rifles, and gunpowder.
Widely different from the above are the following three topics, into the consideration of which discussions upon contraband occasionally diverge:-- 1.