Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-04-22


its operation. The Sd order o. the 25th |
Jan. 1898, directed the cruisers TO "brins
in all vessels laden with caigoes, the pro-
duce of any island of France, Spain or Hol-
land, and coming directly from any port OF
the said islands or settlements TO any port
IN Europe, not being port of Great Bril-
tain, nor of the country TO which such ships
being neutral belonged" The sole effect
OF this order waS 10 extend to the neutral
powers of Europe, the accommodation
which had been yielded TO the United States
by that of 9Th January, 1894. The next
order bears date on the 24th June, 1906.
1t directs the cruisers rot to seize any ves-
sci which shall be CARRYING on trsdc direct
'ly bStween the colonies of enemies and the
neutral country to which the vessel belongs,
and laden with the property of inhabitants
of such neutral country provided such
vessel shall not be supplying nor have sup
Piled the enemy on the outward voyage
with any articles of contraband of war, sc
The sole o5jec, OF this order appears TO
have been to introduce a new rule relative
o coDtraband, by subjecting a vessel TO
seizure ON th-- account, on her return voy-
age, after depssiting her cargo at h>r place
or destination. IL prohibits the seizure OF
neutral vessels, European as we'll as Anne
rican, engaged III trade between enemy
colonies and the neutral countries, by pos
tive inhibition. That trade had been left
free before, by the restriction of the sell
.,lre to vessels engaged in the direct trade
between enemy colonies and the parent
country. 1t was now secured by positive
| inhibition. The right TO carry on the trade
| from the neutra al country toother countries,
was left on the ground on which it stood
before. That this order was not intended
. 81, Il ] 4 -
made sufficiently evident by many decisions
of the courts of admiralty, which have been
given since the order was issued. In proof
of this l refer TO all the cases that were de-
cided by the British courts of admiralty,
touching the trade ofneutrals with enemy
colonies in the years 1895 and 6. and more
Especially to that of the William Trefrey,
il being the last one and containing sum.
mary OF the whole doctrine.
| II we recur to the decisions Of the courts
themselves we shall find full confirmati-
on of what is here advanced. We shall
find that ia conforming their decisions TO
the spirit of the orders OF the government,
they inhibit the direct trade only between
the colony and the parent country, or some
other country of Europe: that they do not
call IN question the trade between neutral
powers in the productions of enemy colo
mics, alter those productions were allowed
to have been incorporated INTO the stock OF
the country; that they gave recent and
| high tffencc only by the new doctrines adj
vamced, on this latter point, which, by as
suming to investigate the motives of the
parties engaged in the trade, and TO reject
acts which were before deemed saiissacta.
~ by decisions the most solemn, and to i'm
pose new conditions the most onerHus and
oppressive, laid that commerce completely
at the mercy OF British tribunals. The
most material cases are those of the Imma-
nuel, which involved the question of a trade
| between Bordeaux and ST. Domingo, that
liz, the direct trade between the parent
country and it's colony, in ~ inioI, tho soadz
were condemned on that account. Robin.
Rep. 2d vol. page 1876. And Of the Polly,
I.asky, in which the vessel was taken en- :
Voyage from Marblehead to Spain, charged
with the productions OF the HAVANA,
drought to MarbIehead BY the same vessel
IN this case the question ofcontinuty OF voy
aye was involved, s. the court decided in ia
vor OF the American claim, on ground tn D,
give no offence. l. was admitted in expli-
Cit terms by the judge, that an American
had a right TO import the produce OF the
Spanish colonies into his own country, and
TO carry them on theuce TO the general COM
mcrCe Of Europe, and that the landing OF
the cargo aud payment of the duties
would be sufficient criteria of bona fidc
importation. ID Rob Rep page SOL. The
next cases were those OF the Essex, Orne
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, pushing its doctrine to the unjust &
perniciou, extent complained of, produced
the controversy which took place between
the countries.
the Communication between Mr.. King
aud lord Haw e,buy is of the same cha
racter. The advocate general admits in
his report, which WAS ad0p,cd by lord H.
kesbury, and communicated b. him 10 Mr.
King, that by the relaxation OF the general
principle respecting the trade with enemy
colonies, it was distinctly understood, and
had been repeatedly so decided by the couf,
of appeal, that the produce OF enemy Colo
MES 1ight be imported into tie neutral
country, and re exported thence epcn to
tie mother country OF such colony and in
. like manner that the produce and manu-
I fdcture3 OF the mother country might he
carried to its colonies. lie states tina, the
direct TRADE between the mother country
and its colonies had not been recognized as
legal that what amounted to an in erme.
date importation in,o the neutral country,
, might sometimes be a question Of dilicul-
lty; that the mere touching in the neutral
, country 70 take fresh clearances, MIGHT per.
. haps be deemed evasiye, and IN effec, the