In certain quarters it would seem the opinion prevailed that because Japan and Russia were engaged in war neutral nations should not trade with either of the belligerents.
Such an opinion is opposed to the free and unrestricted commerce of nations which is guaranteed by international law.
When a foreign war is carried on the trade of neutrals with the bell is hampered by only two restrictions. A neutral is not at liberty to give help to one of the belligerent States by conveying to it certain classes of goods which will assist it in the war, uor to trade ith ports of one belligerent State which have been blockaded by the other.
The two restrictions above stated in-dade what may be defined as contrabands of war, and what may, by international law, be defined as an effective blockade.
But aside from the restrictions and the principles they are meant to the commeret and belligerents Although neutral State restrictions upon the actions of their subjects or citizens, and acquiesce in the condemnation which follows upon breaches of them, the law does not conclude that the breaches are illegal, nor that th will decline to enforce contracts which have boon the view of breaking through the restrictions, as by carrying contraband goods, or running blockades.
Pho doctrine in favour of froe and unrestricted coramerce is laid down by Lord Westbury as follows "In the view of international law, the commerce of nations is perfectly froe and unrestricted. The subjects of each nation have right to interchange the products of labour with the ivbabitants of every other country. If hostilities occur b
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.