nitude, the resources of the belligerents will be mobilized on the same principle but with even greater care and effectiveness. This will necessarily result in a change in some of the rules of international law. One of the first which will be modified or even abolished is that which distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. In future wars the only non-combatants will be those who are physically unable to contribute anything to the national resources. They will constitute so small a proportion of the population and the agencies of warfare will be of such a kind that their rights will receive scant respect. This is the inevitable result of organizing a whole nation for war.

In the second place, the old distinction between contraband and non-contraband will be little regarded and will probably disappear altogether. If entire nations are organized for war, the basis of the distinction no longer exists, and all cargoes for the use of the enemy population will be subject to capture.

In the third place, the invention of the submarine and of torpedoes which can be directed by radio makes impossible the maintenance of a blockade in accordance with the old rules. Hence if belligerents are to exercise their recognized rights against the commerce of the enemy, they must devise new means for the accomplishment of their object. If the end be legitimate, any means which are plainly adapted to it and which do not offend the current standards of humanity in the waging of war or violate international agreements must be recognized as legitimate. It is not to be expected that a belligerent will risk the loss of a war merely because new methods of warfare have made the old rules of blockade inapplicable.

CHAPTER XX.

THE DOCTRINE OF CONTINUOUS VOYAGE OR ENEMY DESTINATION.

THE WILLIAM.

LORDS COMMISSIONERS OF APPEAL IN PRIZE CAUSES OF ENGLAND. 1806. 5 C. Robinson, 385.

This was a question on the continuity of a voyage in the colonial trade of the enemy, brought by appeal from the Vice Admiralty Court at Halifax, where the ship and cargo, taken on a destination to Bilboa in Spain, and claimed on behalf of Messrs. W. and N. Hooper of Marblehead in the state of Massachusetts, had been condemned 17th July, 1800.

It appeared in evidence, that the ship had gone to Martinique, where the outward cargo was disposed of; that she then proceeded to La Guira, and took on board a cargo of cocoa, the property of the owners, which was brought to Marblehead on the 29th May, and unladen; that the ship was then cleaned and slightly repaired, and again took on board the chief part of the former cargo, and sailed on or before the 7th June, upon a destination to Bilboa. Among the papers was a certificate from the collector of the customs, "that this vessel had entered and landed a cargo of cocoa belonging to Messrs. W. and N. Hooper, and that the duties had been secured agreeable to law, and that the said cargo had been re-shipped on board this vessel bound for Bilboa."

SIR WILLIAM GRANT-The question in this case is, whether that part of the cargo which has been the subject of further proof, and which, it is admitted, was at the time of the capture, going to Spain, is to be considered as coming directly from Laguira within the meaning of his Majesty's instructions. According to our understanding of the law, it is only from those. instructions that neutrals derive any right of carrying on with

the colonies of our enemies, in time of war, a trade from which they were excluded in time of peace. The instructions had not permitted the direct trade between the hostile colony and its mother country, but had, on the contrary ordered all vessels engaged in it to be brought in for lawful adjudication; and what the present claimants accordingly maintain, is not that they could carry the produce of Laguira directly to Spain; but that they were not so carrying the cargo in question, inasmuch as the voyage in which it was taken was a voyage from North America, and not directly from a colony of Spain.

What then, with reference to this subject, is to be considered as a direct voyage from one place to another? Nobody has ever supposed that a mere deviation from the straightest and shortest course, in which the voyage could be performed, would change its denomination, and make it cease to be a direct one within the intendment of the instructions. Nothing can depend on the degree or the direction of deviation-whether it be of more or fewer leagues, whether towards the coast of Africa, or towards that of America. Neither will it be contended that the point from which the commencement of a voyage is to be reckoned changes as often as the ship stops in the course of it; nor will it the more change, because a party may choose arbitrarily by the ship's papers or otherwise to give the name of a distinct voyage to each stage of a ship's progress. The act of shifting the cargo from the ship to the shore, and from the shore back again into the ship, does not necessarily amount to the termination of one voyage and the commencement of another. It may be wholly unconnected with any purpose of importation into the place where it is done: Supposing the landing to be merely for the purpose of airing or drying the goods, or of repairing the ship, would any man think of describing the voyage as beginning at the place where it happened to become necessary to go through such a process? Again, let it be supposed that the party has a motive for desiring to make the voyage appear to begin at some other place than that of the original lading, and that he therefore lands the cargo purely and solely for the purpose of enabling himself to affirm, that it was at such other place that the goods were taken on board, would this contrivance at all alter the truth of the fact? Would not the real voyage still be from the place of the original shipment, notwithstanding the attempt to give it the appearance of having begun from a different place? The truth may

not always be discernible, but when it is discovered, it is according to the truth and not according to the fiction, that we are to give to the transaction its character and denomination. If the voyage from the place of lading be not really ended, it matters not by what acts the party may have evinced his desire of making it appear to have been ended. That those acts have been attended with trouble and expence cannot alter their quality or their effect. The trouble and expence may weigh as circumstances of evidence, to shew the purpose for which the acts were done; but if the evasive purpose be admitted or proved, we can never be found to accept as a substitute for the observance of the law, the means, however operose, which have been employed to cover a breach of it. Between the actual importation by which a voyage is really ended, and the colourable importation which is to give it the appearance of being ended, there must necessarily be a great resemblance. The acts to be done must be almost entirely the same; but there is this difference between them.-The landing of the cargo, the entry at the custom-house, and the payment of such duties as the law of the place requires, are necessary ingredients in a genuine importation; the true purpose of the owner cannot be effected without them. But in a fictitious importation they are mere voluntary ceremonies, which have no natural connection whatever with the purpose of sending on the cargo to another market, and which, therefore, would never be resorted to by a person entertaining that purpose, except with a view of giving to the voyage which he has resolved to continue, the appearance of being broken by an importation, which he has resolved not really to make.

Now, what is the case immediately before us? The cargo in question was taken on board at Laguira. It was at the time of the capture proceeding to Spain; but the ship had touched at an American port. The cargo was landed and entered at the custom-house, and a bond was given for the duties to the amount of 1,239 dollars. The cargo was re-shipped, and a debenture for 1,211 dollars by way of drawback was obtained. All this passed in the course of a few days. The vessel arrived at Marblehead on the 29th of May; on that day the bond for securing the duties was given. On the 30th and 31st the goods were landed, weighed, and packed. The permit to ship them is dated the 1st of June, and on the 3d of June the vessel is cleared out as laden, and ready to proceed to sea. We are

frequently obliged to collect the purpose from the circumstances of the transaction. The landing thus almost instantaneously followed by the re-shipment, has little appearance of having been made with a view to actual importation; but it is not upon inference that the conclusion in this case is left to rest. The claimants instead of shewing that they really did import their cargo, have, in their attestation, stated the reasons which determined them not to import it. They say indeed, that when they ordered it to be purchased, "it was with the single view of bringing it to the United States, and that they had no intention or expectation of exporting it in the said schooner to Spain." Supposing that from this somewhat ambiguous statement we are to collect that their original intention was to have imported this cargo into America, with a view only to the American market, yet their intention had been changed before the arrival of the vessel. For they state that in the beginning of May they had received accounts of the prices of cocoa in Spain, which satisfied them that it would sell much better there than in America, and that they had therefore determined to send it to the Spanish market. Nothing is alledged to have happened between the landing of the cargo and its reshipment, that could have the least influence on their determination. It was not in that short interval that American prices fell, or that information of the higher prices in Spain had been received. Knowing beforehand the comparative state of the two markets, they neither tried nor meant to try that of America, but proceeded with all possible expedition to go through the forms which have been before enumerated. If the continuity of the voyage remains unbroken, it is immaterial whether it be by the prosecution of an original purpose to continue it, as in the case of the Essex, or, as in this case, by the relinquishment of an original purpose to have brought it to a termination in America. It can never be contended, that an intention to import once entertained is equivalent to importation. And it would be a contradiction in terms to say that by acts done after their original intention has been abandoned, such original intention has been carried into execution. Why should a cargo, which there was to be no attempt to sell in America, have been entered at an American custom-house, and voluntarily subjected to the payment of any, even the most trifling duty? Not because an importation was, or in such a case could be intended, but because it was thought expedient that something should be done, which in a British