the shares of all the neutrals, if permitted to remain after knowledge of the war, whether the chief seat of the business is there or in the neutral realm, with the exception only of goods shipped by the partnership bonâ fide on the exclusive account and risk of the neutral partner. Anna. Vigilantia. St. Joze. Frances. Suza. Vriendschaf.

1768. The native of a belligerent, domiciled in a neutral, country may lawfully trade with the adversary of that in which he was born. Danaus.

1769. ContrABAND.—The owner of contraband forfeits the whole of it, together with all his interest in and all his other property on board the ship.

1770. The owners of the ship forfeit their interest in her if affected with notice that she is engaged in the offence ; such notice is inferred from the vessel sailing under false representations, with false papers, or on a fictitious destination, or if the contraband is permitted to be concealed in the cargo, or is hidden by any device, or with the sanction of any officer who can be regarded as their agent.

1771. The country to which the vessel belonged was bound by treaty with the belligerent not to permit the conveyance of contraband; the court held that all persons interested in the ship and cargo were involved in the offence, on a pretence that she was to be regarded as an enemy's ship Ringende Jacob.

1772. Is it the law of the prize-court that if the contraband is of no value to the captors, they are to be compensated by confiscation of the ship, and all on board belonging to her owners? Of that character are military persons and despatches, which may be of great value to the enemy, but of little to the captors, since they can only sell the latter for waste-paper, and cannot now sell the former as slaves. The cargo may be released through the "indulgence" of the court, if the owners and their agents are entirely ignorant and innocent of the pernicious freight; but the ship can under no circumstances escape; the master must know the

character of his passengers, he must know that the despatches are for the officer of the enemy, he must be presumed to know the military character of their contents. She is in the service of the enemy, it matters not under what coercion; of that her owner must complain to his government. Nor is his offence terminated with the criminal voyage; so long as she continues in the employment of the enemy, her neutral character cannot be renovated. She is by the fatal mission dedicated to the foe, she is marked as the captor's reward. Oronzebo.

1773. It appears to be the practice of the prize court to allow the master and crew of the neutral their adventures, unless their conduct is impeachable, as having prevaricated in their examination, or having engaged in a fraudulent trade. 3 Phil. 346.

1774. VIOLATION OF BLOCKADE.-The sentence is confiscation of the ship which violates the law of blockade, absolute confiscation, with all she carries belonging to her owner, and with all she carries belonging to any who had notice of the blockade before the shipment, and of those who had employed the master as their agent in embarking the cargo, although she merely deviated to the blockaded port for necessary supplies. But the same "indulgence" (exemption of the innocent cargo) has been exercised where there was no knowledge of the blockade till after the ship had sailed, and the master, after receiving the information, obstinately persisted in going on to the port of his original destination. Exchange.

1775. CONVOY.-The sentence of the prize court for sailing under convoy, except when permitted by treaty, seems to have been confiscation of the vessel and the cargo and freight of her owners, of all the cargo confided to the agency of the master, and of all the merchandise put on board by its owners aware that she was to sail under the protection of their country's flag.

1776. AGENCY.-The master is the agent of the ship

owners, for the ship, and for their shares and interest in the cargo and the freight; their property entrusted to him is liable for all his transgressions on belligerent rights. He is the agent also of all owners of cargo who entrust it to his control otherwise than as a carrier for hire.

1777. But as regards neutrals, the owners are not responsible for the act of the master beyond the scope of the authority confided to him with the ship. Therefore the owners of a non-commissioned ship are not liable for an illegal capture made by the master without their privity or assent.

1778. Costs, EXPENSES, and DAMAGES.-It was said that mere law costs, independently of damages, were seldom given by the prize-court. (Leucade.) The Privy Council, in the case of the Ostsee, although refusing the costs of the appeal, gave the appellant the costs of his decree for restitution, which had been refused by the court below. It appears to us that the Court should also have given the costs of the appeal, for the neutral is not responsible for the error of the prize-court judge.

1779. Captor's expenses were ordered to be paid out of the cargo, although it was held that the shipment was not in breach of the blockade. Jeane.

1780. It was held that although the freight due on an enemy's cargo constituted a charge on it, the captor's expenses in obtaining condemnation had precedence of the expenses of the neutral master. Bremen.

1781. If the crew of the captured vessel are grossly illtreated, the prize court will award them damages against the captors, either in a distinct suit or incidentally in the principal cause, and, if necessary, decree payment by the owners of an offending privateer. 3 Phil. 571. Del. Col. v. Arnold. Anna Maria. St. Juan. Die Fire Damer. Lively.

1782. The Privy Council, restoring the proceeds of the ship, rested the disallowance of costs and damages on the particular circumstances of the case, and not merely on the fact that further proof was deemed necessary. Ariel.

1783. A decree for costs and damages is for complete indemnity for the capture. (Leucade.) But it is said that when restitution is awarded with costs and damages in the case of wrongful capture, the measure of the damages is the loss actually sustained, with interest thereon, from the date of the capture; that no allowance can be made for contingent profits (Levin Lark.); that the allowance is for-1st. Loss of chartered freight, not freight pro rata itineris peracti, unless the owner of the goods has accepted them at the shorter destination. 2ndly. Liabilities incurred for nonperformance of his charter, or costs incurred in its subsequent performance. 3rdly. Interest upon the amount recovered, from the date at which the voyage would have been performed had the ship not been captured, to the time of payment; but no allowance for estimated profits which might have been derived from the employment of the ship after the termination of her chartered voyage. Newport.

1784. In the case of the Ostsee, the Privy Council in several respects corrected, or at least endeavoured to correct, the practice of the prize court. "Restitution of a ship and cargo may be attended, according to the circumstances, with any one of the following consequences:-(1) The claimants may be ordered to pay the captors their costs and expenses; or (2) the restitution may be simple restitution, without costs or expenses or damages to either party. (3) The captors may be ordered to pay costs and damages to the claimant. A ship may, by her own misconduct, have occasioned her capture; in such a case, it is very reasonable that she should indemnify the captors against the expenses which her misconduct may have occasioned; or she may be involved, with little or no fault on her part, in such suspicion as to make it the right, or even the duty, of the belligerent to seize her. There may be no fault either in the captor or the captured, or both may be in fault, and in such case there may be damnum absque injuriâ, and no ground for anything but simple restitution

or there

may

be a

third case, where not only the ship is in no fault, but she is not by any act of her own, voluntary or involuntary, open to any fair ground of suspicion. In such a case, a belligerent may seize at his peril and take the chance of something appearing on investigation to justify the capture; but if he fails in such a case, it seems very fit that he should pay the costs and damages which he has occasioned." These views were sustained by reference to the opinions of foreign as well as English jurists, and to decisions in the French, the American, and the English prize courts,-to, among others, the opinions and judgments of Lord Stowell. It was further declared that violence and vexation were not necessary to entitle the ship illegally captured to damages, and that the mistake occasioned by the act of their government could not relieve the captors. These doctrines, very lenient to captors, and regarding them as ministers of the law rather than as enforcing their own special rights in the institution of the search and detention, had abundance of declaration, but not an exuberance of practice, to support them.

1785. On the previous hearing of the case of the Ostsee before the venerable judge of the prize court, he said,— "During the seventeen years that Lord Stowell presided in this court, and administered the law of nations with regard to war, I believe that out of the many ships and cargoes brought before him, he condemned the captors in costs and damages in only about ten or a dozen cases,-not one in a thousand. As far as I recollect, there are only three cases of restitution with costs and damages. I am well aware that when a seizure has been made without ostensible cause or reason, justice requires that the persons making the seizure should make good to the party the loss that may have been occasioned by the capture. At the same time, I am of opinion that this is the extremity of the law of nations, which ought not to be adopted except in cases which imperatively call upon the court so to do." And on this ground he refused to give costs and damages to the ship