Page images

so further question relative to the voyage. The terms “for his own use,”
*hich are to be found in the report, are obviously intended to assert the
•laim, only that the property shall be American, and not that of an enemy;
Y admitting the right to seiid on the produce afterwards to the general com-
*rce of Europe, it is not possible that those terms flould convey any other
idea. A bona fide importation is also held by the judge to be satisfied by the
landing the goods and paying the duties. This therefore is, I think, the true
*Port of that decision. The doćtrine is again laid down in still more expli-
$ot terms by the government itself, in a correspondence between lord Hawkes-
bury and my predecessor, Mr. King. The case was precisely similar to those
which have been lately before the court. Mr. King complained, in a letter of
arch 18, 1861, that the cargo of an American vessel going from the United
States to a spanish colony, had been condemned by the vice admiralty court
9f Nassau, on the ground that it was of the growth of Spain, which decision
* contended was contrary to the law of nations, and requested that suitable
instructions might be dispatched to the proper officers in the West Indies,
to prevent like abuses in future.
Lord Hawkesbury,in a reply of April 11,communicated the report of the king's
advocate general, in which it is expressly stated that the produce of an enemy
may be imported by a neutral into his own country and re-exported thence to
the mother country : and in like manner, in that circuitous mode, that the
produce and manufactures of the mother country might find their way to its
colonies ; that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral
country broke the continuity of the voyage, and legalized the trade, although
the goods were re-shipped in the same vessel, on account of the fame neutral
proprietors, and forwarded for sale to the mother country of the colony. It
merits attention in this report, (so clearly and positively is the doctrine laid
down, that the landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral coun-
try broke the continuity of the voyage) that it is stated as a doubtful point whe-
ther the mere touching in the neutral country to obtain fresh clearances will
be confidered in the light of the direét trade; that no positive inhibition is
o on any but the direct trade between the mother country and the co-
This doćtrine, in the light herein stated, is also to be found in the treaty be-
tween Great Britain and Russia, June 17, 1801. By the 2d section of the 3d
article, the commerce of neutrals in the productions or manufactures of the
enemies of Great Britain, which have become the property of the neutral, is
declared to be free ; that section was afterwards explained by a declaratory
article of October 20 of the same year, by which it is agreed, that it shall not
be understood to authorise neutrals to carry the produce or merchandife of an
enemy either directly from the colonies to the parent country, or from the pa-
rent country to the colonies. In other respects the commerce was left on the
footing on which it was placed by that se&tion, perfeótly free, except in the
direct trade between the colony and the parent country. It is worthy of re-
Inark that, as by the reference made in the explantaory article of the treaty
with Russia to the U.S. of America, it was supposed that those states and Rus:
Jia, Denmark,and Sweden, had a common interest in neutral questions, so it was
obviously intended, from the fimilarity of sentiment which is observable between
that treaty as mentioned,and the report of the advocate general above mention-
ed,to place all the parties on the same footing. After these acts of the British
government, which being official were made publick, it was not to be expected
that any greater restraint would have been contemplated by it, on that com-
merce, than they impose ; that an inquiry would ever have been made,
not whether the property with which an American vessel was charged belong-
ed to a citizen of the United Sates or an enemy, but whether it belonged to
this or that American ; an inquiry which imposes a condition which it is be-
lieved that no independent nation, having a just sense of what it owes to its
rights or its honour, can ever comply with. Much less was it to be expected


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]


[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »