tions."1 It is admitted that "shipments in the ordinary course of trade to private persons or firms, even at an enemy's port. may be considered prima facie not contra band," but upon this point a distinct reser vation is made. "The simple fact of con signment to private persons does not pre clude the possibility that the articles are ul timately destined for belligerent forces, and Russia insists that it be not necessarily re garded as conclusive evidence of the inno cent character of the goods." This reserva tion is entirely proper. But Russia admits that in such cases the burden of proof rests upon the captor. This is a capital point. The answer of Russia to the American protest was received on September 19 and is said to follow generally the lines of her reply to Great Britain. Count Lamsdorff stated that instructions had been sent to the prize courts and naval commanders supple menting and explaining the regulations re specting contraband of war originally is'New York Times for September 17, 1904. This communication was made verbally by Count Lamsdorff to the British Ambassador Hardinge at St. Petersburg. It will not involve, it is said, any public amendment of the Russian contraband anil prize regulations, but it implies a new official interpretation of these regulations. As such it is binding upon Russian prize courts and naval commanders. Russia thus "saves her lace" by not makiii'T a public surrender of her former posi tion.
sued. The conditional contraband charac ter of articles of dual use is admitted in the new instructions. If articles of dual use are addressed to private individuals in Japan they will not be subject to seizure and con fiscation unless private individuals are shown to be agents or contractors of die military or naval authorities of Japan.2 It will thus be seen that Russia has appar ently accepted in principle the contention of the American and British Governments that articles ancipitis nsiis are only subject to confiscation when consigned to places under siege, blockaded ports, or when clearly des tined for the military or naval forces of one of the belligerents, and that they are not subject to seizure and confiscation merely because they are consigned to a belligerent port, at least in respect to provisions. The decisions of the Russian prize court at Ylad ivostok will probably be reversed by the Admiralty Court at St. Petersburg, at least, in respect to the confiscation of flour, in the cases of the Arabia and the Calchas, and we have a right to expect that the conduct of Russian naval commanders and prize courts will be more circumspect in the future. 'New York Times for September 20, 1904. Nothing seems to have been said by Russia re garding machinery and railway material.
