The Japanese instructions of 1894 permit the destruction of only enemy vessels; and Art.

50 of the carefully debated "Code des prises" of the Institut de Droit International is to the same effect.

It may be worth while to add that the eminent Russian jurist, M.
de Martens, in his book on international law, published some twenty years ago, in mentioning that the distance of her ports from the scenes of naval operations often obliges Russia to sink her prizes, so that "ce qui les lois maritimes de tous les etats considerent comme un moyen auquel il n'y a lieu de recourir qu'a la derniere extremite, se transformera necessairement pour nous en regle normale," foresaw that "cette mesure d'un caractere general soulevera indubitablement contre notre pays un mecontentement universel." 2.

A far more important question is, I venture to think, raised by the Russian list of contraband, sweeping, as it does, into the category of "absolutely contraband" articles things such as provisions and coal, to which a contraband character, in any sense of the term, has usually been denied on the Continent, while Great Britain and the United States have admitted them into the category of "conditional" contraband, only when shown to be suitable and destined for the armed forces of the enemy, or for the relief of a place besieged.

Still more unwarrantable is the Russian claim to interfere with the trade in raw cotton.