commerce may be (w). On the other hand, the citizen of a belligerent country, domiciled in a neutral country, may lawfully trade with the enemy of his native country (z). The trade must not, however, be in articles contraband of war (y).

The leading case on trading with the enemy is that of The Hoop (s), a neutral vessel which, at the end of the last century, sailed with a cargo from Rotterdam, ostensibly, in order to deceive the French cruisers, to Bergen, but really for a British port. This case affords an instance of the strict severity with which the law is administered as regards the offence now under consideration, and is, moreover, especially instructive owing to the numerous relative precedents cited in the judgment. The British owners of the cargo had, it appeared, for some time traded extensively with Holland, and on the occupation of that country by the French, a special licence was granted to them to continue this trade. Being, however, subsequently officially, but erroneously, informed by the Commissioners of Customs of Glasgow that goods could in future, according to a recent Act of Parliament, be brought from the United Provinces without special permit, the above shipment was thereupon made without such permit, and was seized and submitted for adjudication. Sir W. Scott, in giving judgment for the captors, observed that by a general rule in the maritime jurisprudence of this country, all trading with the public enemy, unless with the permission of the sovereign, was interdicted and involved confiscation, and he cited numerous cases illustrative of the strictness with which this rule had been enforced in the past. "In my

(w) Ex parte Baglehole, 18 Ves. jun. 528; 1 Rose, 271.

(x) The Danous, 4 Rob. 255, note.

(y) The Neptunus, p. 270, infra.
() 1 Rob. 196.

opinion," he observed, "no principle ought to be held more sacred than that commercial intercourse cannot subsist on any other footing than that of the direct permission of the state." Further:-"In all cases of this kind which have come before this tribunal, they have received an uniform determination. The cases which I have produced prove that the rule has been rigidly enforced, where Acts of Parliament have, on different occasions, been made to relax the navigation laws, and other Revenue Acts, when the government has authorized, under the sanction of an Act of Parliament, a homeward trade from the enemy's possessions, but has not specifically protected an outward trade to the same, though intimately connected with that homeward trade, and almost necessary to its existence; that it has been enforced where strong claim, not merely of convenience, but almost of necessity, excused it on behalf of the individual; that it has been enforced where cargoes have been laden before the war, but where the parties have not used all possible diligence to countermand the voyage after the first notice of hostilities; and that it has been enforced not only against the subjects of the Crown, but likewise against those of its allies in the war, upon the supposition that the rule was founded on a strong and universal principle which allied states in war had a right to notice and apply mutually to each other's subjects. Indeed, it is the less necessary to produce these cases, because it is expressly laid down by Lord Mansfield (a) that such is the maritime law of England."

The Bella Guidita (b) is another instance of the rigid application of the principle under consideration. Here, goods were sent in a neutral vessel from England to Grenada, a British possession, which possession, although seized, had apparently not been definitely appropriated, by

(a) In Gist v. Mason, 1 Term R. 86.

(b) 1 Rob. 207.

the French. Special circumstances existed, moreover, in countenance of such a shipment, but, notwithstanding, the vessel was confiscated as being employed in illicit intercourse with the enemy.

The case of The Abby (b) is somewhat exceptional. A British vessel sailed for a friendly port in the West Indies, but war was shortly afterwards declared against the country owning the port. On arrival off the coast the vessel was captured, as being engaged in trade with the enemy. But before this occurred the port had been captured by the British, so that at the moment of capture the vessel, although her master was not aware of the fact, was trading with a British and not with a hostile possession. The Court, in ordering the release of the vessel, observed that to justify condemnation there must be the act of trading to the enemy's country, as well as the intention. If the destination, however, had been known to be hostile when the vessel sailed, such a sailing might have been a sufficient act of illegality. In The Anna Catharina (c), Sir W. Scott laid it down that a contract existing between a person domiciled in a place which had passed by conquest into the possession of Great Britain, and a foreign government at war with Great Britain, became illegal; but that this illegality ceased on transfer of the contract to a neutral.

In the American Courts the rule against trading with the enemy is applied with equal strictness. This was exemplified in The Rapid (d), where an American citizen, having purchased goods on British territory, deposited them on an island near the frontier, within the British dominion. On the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and the

(b) 5 Rob. 251, referred to also on p. 272, infra, q. v. Tide also The De Bilboa, 2 Rob. 133.

(c) 4 Rob. 107.

(d) 8 Cranch, 155. Vide also The St. Lawrence, ibid. 434.

American States he sent a vessel-nearly a year after the purchase-to the island, and removed the goods. The vessel was captured with her cargo, and both were condemned, the Court observing that to admit a citizen to withdraw property from a hostile country a long time after the commencement of war, on the pretext of its having been purchased before the war, would lead to the most injurious consequences, and hold out temptations to every species of fraudulent and illegal traffic with the enemy. In the same country it has been held that if a belligerent vessel takes on board a cargo from an enemy's ship under pretence of ransom, this is a trading with the enemy. And the vessel may be seized on her return voyage, after having discharged her cargo (e). Also, that a vessel which is captured by the enemy, but released, and on leaving the port of the captors ships a cargo from the enemy's country, must be held to have been engaged in trade with the enemy (ƒ).

Immediately on the breaking out of hostilities, a citizen may remove to his own country, with his property (g). But it is permitted to no person to leave his own country in order to fetch from the enemy country property belonging to him (). In The General C. C. Pinckney (i), a resident in the Confederate States bought a vessel, loaded her with his property, and with papers issued by the enemy brought her through the blockade. The ship and cargo were captured and condemned, but were restored on appeal, the claimant having succeeded in establishing to the satisfaction of the Court that he had left Charleston, S. C., with the intent to withdraw from the enemy's country with his effects. In

(e) The Lord Wellington, 2 Gall. 103.

(f) The Alexander, 8 Cranch, 169.
(a) Vide p. 16.

(h) The Rapid, supra.

(i) Blatch. Pr. Ca., 278, 668.

similar cases it was laid down by the Court that a citizen temporarily resident on hostile soil is entitled, on the breaking out of hostilities, to a reasonable time to close his business connexions, collect his effects, and withdraw from the enemy's country (i). But in The Gray Jacket (j), where the removal was undertaken nearly two years after the outbreak of war, condemnation was decreed.

In The Ocean (k), a British-born subject settled as partner in a house of trade in Flushing was about to terminate his business relations there and return to England, when war broke out between the two countries, and he, in common with other British subjects resident in Holland, was for some time forcibly detained. Sir W. Scott considered that it would be going further than the law required to hold in this particular case that the claimant was precluded, and that, on sufficient proof being made of the property, restitution might be decreed.

Sir C. Robinson, in a note to the last-mentioned case, commenting on the hardship to which British subjects are sometimes exposed, owing to the difficulty of removing their goods from the enemy country immediately on the outbreak of hostilities, advises persons so situated to protect themselves by obtaining a special pass from the British Government. In The Dree Gebroeders (1), Sir W. Scott, in condemning the property seized, observed that "pretences of withdrawing funds are at all times to be watched with considerable jealousy, but that when the transaction appears to have been conducted bona fide, cases of this kind are entitled to be treated with considerable leniency." This was a case where a

(i) The Evening Star, ibid. 582; Fifty-two bales of cotton, ibid. 644; The Sarah Starr, ibid. 650; The John Gilpin, ibid. 661; The Pioneer, ibid. 666. (j) 5 Wall. 342, 369.

(k) 5 Rob. 91.

(1) 4 Rob. 234.