The Washington times., 1915-02-21


sail from Charleston. II vessels could
20 safely to Nassau. they covered the
greater part OF the dangerous voyage
In absolute security. Agents Of the
caring for and directing this traffic
from Nassau to Confederate ports.
There were even instances in which
vessels sailed from New York for
Nassau with cargoes obviously de-
passed a law early in 1862 to refuse
clearance to vessels which from the
nature OF their carroes and their des-
tinations were obviously intended TO
authorities complained bitterly that
they were in the habit OF importing
extensively from New York and that
these reyulations were going to
starve their colony. The British gov
pie; but the United States stood pat.
and the British remonstrances were
futile. The North maintained that II
cargoes could travel safely from
to transporting the European market
across the Atlantic to within a few
hours sail OF Confederate ports.
American Courts Rigorous.
Dealing with these questions, which
are analogous to those Great Britain
mas raised with reference to American
cargoes going into Holland, Denmark.
and Italy. but seemingly intended for
germany and Austria. the American
courts were very rigorous. They en-
forced the rule that the act Of sailing
from neutral for a blockaded port. BY
way OF an intermediate neutral port,
made the ship liable to capture and con.
demnation. The Supreme Court Of the
United States laid down the broad rule
on TINS point, and Great Britain Is today
able TO quote Its decision in support Of
British contention that contra band
may not be sent from the United States
70 neutral ports of countries adjacent to
eiermany or Austria. If there Is an in
tention. formed either at the time Of
the shipment or afterward to send the
p!ocKaded In that case, there IL SUBJ
stantially, as to the goods, one continu-
Gus voyage, which cannot be broken by
port; They are liable to Capture and
condemnation, therefore. on the outward
voyage to the neutral port. So also is
the the ship. unless there be reason to con-
the ultimate destination OF the cargo.
and did not hire their ship with a view
10 it.. But II the ultimate destination Is
the known inducement to the partial
latter WITH 'hf Siew snp p Z in bh the
Whatever liability may attach to the
iinal voyage must attack to the earlier
Undertaken with the same cargo and
In continuity Of conveyance. The ships
are planks of the same bridge. ali Of
the same Kind. and all necessary to the
convenient passage Of persons and prop-
dsc;.i dsty from one END to the other These
branches Of blockade. the doctrine Of
continuous voyages
Under this doctrine the leading case.
p@erhaps. @ is that Of the ship sprinebok.
before a yhar 4
alleged by her owners that they were
not aware that her cargo was actually
destined to a blockaded port The yes
sei sei, was captured while en- route to Mas
tnat her owners really knew the intend
ed destination of the cargo. the shin
was restored to them: but they were
refused refused costs ana damages. on the
" Iaolng which did not completely dis
ciose the contents of all the package
on board: and that he had said in his
eHSamination that he did not know on
which the court. fatty declared It re-
sarded as MISREPRESENTATION
High Standard Shown.
Thus was developed the doctrin. Of
continuous voyages" which has first
been enunciated by Lord Stowell. in the
British prize courts. 1t Is worth while to
time powers have been marked by a
very high measure OF legal erudition
and intellectual ability 1t has been i'm
portant. by reason Of the fact that there
Is no such thing as international law
that decisions laid down In one country
during one war should be SO clear. So
obviously logical and fair. that in a
succeeding war. In another country. they
would be accepted. The decisions OF The
British and American courts In this
regard are considered very high author
Lord stowell did not develop the doc
trine Of continuous voyage" so Tar as
did the American authorities. II ia to
the American decision that the world
VIII turn to maintain the most extreme
rlsors or the application OF the law of
contraband and the blockade. Noun
the subject, says:
If England or France should here
after be at war with Mexico, a vessel
Cound Ga1nestnn from ,,;s New York to Mobile or
English or French port on the ground
that she had on board muskets or sad
dies. coats or boots. destined for the
Mexican army. and she would be at the
mercy mercy OF any inferences which an
English or French prize court might
draw from the form OF her papers or the
character of her cargo. And not onIy
was the rule severe. but 1t was applied
win severity. The evidence of an ul.
terror destination was in some cases
sight That the ship was to 90 to
the neutral port for orders or that
goods were shipped deliverable to ord
ere or assigns seems to have been re-
garded as sufficient II the goods them
selves were suitable for the Southern
market and the owner or shipper was
known to have been previously con-
cerned In running the blockade"
Important Development.
Some of he most important develop
ments Of the law of contraband and
blockade were deveNHped during the civil
war In connection with the shipments
of various kinds Of supplies to the port
| Of Matamoros, in Mexico. Matamoros
is on the Mexican side of the Rio
Grande, Immediately at it's mouth. Di-
rectly across the river, on the American
side, is Brownsville, Tex. 1t was frc-
quently observed that vessels which has
come to Nassau under neutral colors
cleared from that port with papers that
| indicated their purpose to land their
cargoes at Matamoros. In such a case,
1 n vessel being overhauled and taken
by Federal cruiser, 1t was impossible
I to prove that her cargo was not In truth
! destined to Matamoros.
Two vessels fving the British Gag,
the BormuGa and PeterhCf. were cap
tured by Federal warships and taken
before prize courts. The question was