Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/392

 Rh

345

left her foreign port with the intention of IN the Yale Law Journal for April the running the blockade, and English boats loaded with goods destined for the Confed "Doctrine of Continuous Voyages" is the erates were thus imperiled during the entire subject of a lengthy article by Qiarles B. voyage across the Atlantic. But by clear Elliot, Judge of the District Court, Minne ing for the British port of Nassau, and there apolis. trans-shipping the goods to more suitable The doctrine of continuous voyages (says vessels, the danger line was brought to with Judge Elliot), was developed by the English courts in the early part of the last century to in a few miles of the blockaded coast. A meet the devices by which it was sought to barren rock in the Bahamas thus became a great commercial port. Its harbor swarmed avoid the rule of the war of 1756, which for bade neutrals in time of war to engage in a with innocent looking neutral trading ves commerce from which they were excluded sels, and the United States government was expected to presume that they had no rela during peace. A neutral vessel might law tions with the rakish craft of race-horse build fully sail from a neutral port to a non-block aded port of a belligerent with goods that frequently called at that busy port. The not contraband of war, and the simple truth known to every one was that the whole trade was a manifest and palpable evasion of device of interposing a neutral port be tween the forbidden colonial port and the a recognized and admitted rule of maritime law. Nassau was a mere output for attack, belligerent port of ultimate destination sug gested itself to the enterprising carriers. As a resting place while hovering off the coast trade between the colonies in America and and awaiting the arrival of a stormy night suitable for a dash to some convenient port. between America and Europe was permitted, In a series of prize cases the United States the Yankee skippers merely sailed from a colonial port to an American port, and from courts held that where interposition of a neutral port was a mere pretence, the voy thence to Europe, and claimed exemption during the latter part of the voyage. The age was continuous, and that the^ vessel and cargo, or merely the cargo, depending upon British courts met this evasion of the rule by the circumstances of each case, subject to holding that the two voyages were in fact condemnation. one continuous voyage, unless the goods Comment—generally adverse—on these passed into the common stock of the country cases by English and Continental jurists, as to which they were first carried. Naturally well as by several American writers, is quot this rule did not meet with the approval of ed at some length by "Mr. Elliott, who adds, the neutrals who were thus deprived of a however valuable carrying trade which was open to The doctrine of continuous voyages as them. But while Americans were particu construed by the United States, especially as larly energetic in their manifestation of dis applied to carrying contraband goods, has approval, their objections were of no avail, been recognized in subsequent cases and is and the rule was thoroughly established that now an established rule of maritime law. "when the ultimate destination of a ship or cargo is such as to infringe belligerent ONE phase of the Eastern situation is thus rights, the offending ship cannot escape commented on by the Law Journal (Lon by stopping at an intermediate neutral don): port." . . . During the Civil War the United The decision of the neutral Powers not to States invoked the same rule for the pur protest against the Russian declaration of a pose of checking violations of the blockade state of siege at Newchang. is a wise one. as well as carrying of contraband goods to the Confederates. A blockade runner, by I There can be no doubt that it is the duty of a belligerent to respect neutral territory—a well established British and American rules, was subject to capture as soon as she had ' duty which both Russia and Japan violated CURRENT LEGAL ARTICLES.