The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-05-21

rope, the accommodation which had beer
yielded to the United States by that Of Stl
| January, 1894. The next order bears date
on the Oath June, 1905. It directs the CRUZ
zers not to seize any vessel which shall be
carrying on trade directly between the colo
MES of enemies and I'll; neutral country tc
which the vessel belongs, and laden with the
property of inhabitants of suchneutral coun-
try; provided such vessel shall not be supply
ing nor have supplied the enemy on the out
ward voyage with any articles of contraband
of war, &c. The sole object of this order
appears to have been to Introduce new rule
relative to contraband, by subjecting a vessel
to seizure on that account, on her return voy-
age, after depositing her cargo at her place
of destination. 1t prohibits the seizure OF
neutral vessels, European as well as Ameri-
can, engaged in a trade between enemy CO.
lonies and the neutral countries, by positive
inhibition. That trade had been left free be-
fore, by the restriction of the seizure to ves-
sells engaged in the direct trade between en-
envy colonies and the parent country. 1t was
now secured by positive inhibition. The right
to carry on the trade from the neutral coun-
try to other countries, was left on the ground
on which it stood before. That this order
was not intended to affect that trade, and did
not affect it, is made sufficiently evident by
hoHf 0CSiolohS Va liC COuItS VI 1hQNiITallNS
which have been given since the order was
issued. In proof of this, refer to all the Ca
ses that were decided by the British courts
of admiralty, touching the trade of neutrals
with enemy colonies in the years 1905 and g.,
and more especially to that of the William
Trefrey, it being the last one and containing
a summary of the whole doctrine.
If we recur to the decisions of the courts
themselves, we shall find full confirmation
of what is here advanced. We shall find that
in conforming their decisions to the spirit of
the orders of the government, they inhibit
the direct trade only between the colony &
the parent country, or some other country
of Europe: that they do not call in question
the trade between neutral powers in the pro-
auctions of enemy colonies. after those pro-
dnctions were allowed to have been incor-
porated into the stock of the country that
they gave recent and high offence only by
the new doctrines advanced, on this latter
point, which, by assuming to investigate
the motives of the parties engaged in the
trade, and to reject acts which were before
deemed satisfactory by decisions the most
solemn, and to impose new Conditions the
most onerous and oppressive, laid that COM
merce completely at the mercy of British
tribunals. The most material cases are
those of the Emmanuel, which involved the
question of trade between Bordeaux and
st. Domingo, that is, the direct trade be-
tween the Parent country and its colony, i'll
which the goods were condemned on that
account. ROBIN. Rep. I'd vol. page ioo. And OF
Polly, Lasky, in which the vessel was taken
on voyage from Marblehead to Spain,
charged with the productions of the Havan-
ma, brought to Marblehead by the same YES
Sci. In this case the question of continuity
of voyage was involved, and the court
decided in favor of the American claim, on
ground that gave no offence. 1t was admit
ted in explicit terms by the judge, that an
American had right to import the produce
of the Spanish colonies into his own country,
and to carry them on thence to the general
commerce of Europe, and that the landing
OF the cargo and payment of the duties would
be sufficient criteria of a bona fide importa-
ton. Cd Rob. Rep page 361. The next
cases were those of the Essex, Ornc, of the
Rowhena, and some others of the same
kind, in 1905, which turned on the point of
continuity of voyage, in which the court,
ciour extent complained of, produced the
controversy which took place between the
countries
The communication between Mr.. King
and lord Hawksbury is of the same charac-
ter. The acknowledgement admits in his
report, which was adopted by lord Hawkes.
bury, and communicated by him to Mr.. King
that by the relaxation of the general princ-
pleirespectingthe trade with enemy colonies,
1T was distinctly understood. and had been
repeatedly so decided by the court of appeal
that the produce of enemy colonies might
be imported into the neutral country, and re-
exported thence eUen TO The mother country
of such colony and in like manaer that the
produce and manufactures of the mother
country might be carried to it's colonies
He states that the direct trade between the
mother country and its colonies had not been
recognized as legal that what amounted to
an intermediate importation, into the neutral
country, might sometimes be question of diff
hculty that the mere touching in the neu-
trail country to take fresh clearances, might
perhaps be deemed evasive, and in effect the
direct trade /; but that the high court of adj
miralty had expressly decided (and he saw
no reason to expect that the court of APP
peal would vary the rules) that landing the
goods & paying the duties in the neutral coun-
try would break the continuity of the vow
age, q was such all importation as would le-
galize the trade, although the goods were re-
shipped in the same vessel, Oh account of
the same proprietors, and were forwarded
for sale to the mother country of the colo
ny.
This communication corresponds in every
the mfnutest circumstance with the spirit