crew, and brings back the produce of her voyage for Dutch consumption and Dutch revenue. If to this you add that the vessel is transferred by the Dutch, because they themselves are unable to carry on the trade avowedly in their own persons, it is truly a Dutch commerce in a very eminent degree, not only in its essence, but for the very hostile purpose of rescuing and protecting the Dutch from the naval superiority of their British enemy. "There had been a determination last war, in the case of two persons, one resident at St. Eustatius, and the other in Denmark, who were partners in a house of trade at St. Eustatius. The one who resided there, forwarded the cargoes to Europe; the other received them at Amsterdam, disposed of them there, and then returned to Denmark. It was decided, in that case, that the share of the person resident in St. Eustatius was liable to condemnation as the property of a domiciled Dutchman, and that the share of the other partner should be restored as the property of a neutral. (The Jacobus Johannes. House of Lords, Feb. 10, 1785.) "There was also a case in this war of some persons who migrated from Nantucket to France, and there carried on a fishery very beneficial to the French. In that case, the property of a partner domiciled in France was condemned, whilst the property of another partner, resident in America, was restored. From these two cases a notion had been adopted, that the domicil of the parties was that alone to which the court had a right to resort; but the case of Coopman, House of Lords, April 9, 1798, was lately decided on very different principles. It was there said by the Lords that the former cases were cases merely at the commencement of a war; that in the case of a person carrying on trade habitually in the country of the enemy, though not resident there, he should have time to withdraw himself from that commerce, and that it would press too heavily on neutrals to say that, immediately on the first breaking out of a war, their goods should become subject to confiscation; but it was then expressly laid down, that if a person entered into a house of trade, in the enemy's country, in time of war, or continued that connection during the war, he should not protect himself by mere residence in a neutral country. แ "That decision instructs me in this doctrine--a doctrine supported by strong principles of equity and propriety—that there is a traffic which stamps a national character on the individual, independent of that character which mere personal residence may give him." There is still another mode in which a hostile Hostile char character may be imparted to the person, so as to a acter impress ed by engagemerce ordi ment in com narily confined to the adverse subject his property to capture, and that is, by commerce of that peculiar character as may be regarded to be confined to the subjects of the adverse belligerent. belligerents themselves. The case illustrating this point, is The Princessa, The facts in this case are stated by the learned judge in his decision. Lord Stowell says: "This is a Spanish frigate, employed as a packet of the king of Spain, to bring bullion and specie from South America to old Spain; and I think the presumption is most strong, that none but Spanish sub Especially when by au ment. jects are entitled to the privilege of having money brought from that colony to Spain. I have looked carefully through the manifest, and I perceive there is not one shipment but in the name of Spaniards. Therefore, it appears that this is not an ordinary trade; and I must take this to be property which must have been considered as Spanish, and which could not have been exported in any other char acter. "It has been decided by the Lords, in several cases, that the property of British merchants, even shipped before the war, yet, if in a Spanish charac ter, and in a trade so exclusively peculiar to Spanish subjects, as that no foreign name could appear in it, must take the consequences of that character, and be considered as Spanish property." One who is specially authorized by the govern thority of ad- ment of the enemy to engage, and, pursuant to verse govern- such authority, does engage in commercial transac tions which are, as a general thing, confined to the citizens or subjects of the enemy, must of necessity be regarded as an enemy, is fully established in the case of the Anna Catherina, which has been al ready cited in another connection. Upon this particular subject, in that case, the learned judge says: "It is by nothing peculiar in his own character, that the original contractor would be liable to be considered as a Spanish merchant, but merely by the acceptance of this contract, and by acting upon it. If other persons take their share, and accept those benefits, they take their share also in the legal effects. They accepted his privileges; they adopted his resident agent. It would be monstrous to say that the effect of the original contract is to give the Spanish character to the contracting flag impresses There is another principle which has become Character of established by the authorities of the courts, by the vessel. which a hostile character is impressed upon property, by virtue of the character of its employment, irrespective of the actual or even the implied or constructive domicil of the owner. It refers to ships or vessels which navigate the ocean under the flag, or the pass, or protection of the enemy. The case which illustrates this principle most directly, is that of The Elizabeth,' in which Lord Stowell says: "By the established rules of law, it has been decided that a vessel sailing under the colors and pass of a nation, is to be considered 1 The Elizabeth, 5 Rob., 2. clothed with the national character of that country. With goods it may be otherwise; but ships have a peculiar character impressed upon them by the special nature of their documents, and have al ways been held to the character with which they are so invested, to the exclusion of any claims of interest that persons living in neutral countries may actually have in them. In the war before the last, this principle was strongly recognized in the case of a ship taken on a voyage from Surinam to Amsterdam, and documented as a Dutch ship. Claims were given for specific shares on behalf of persons residing in Switzerland, and one claim was on behalf of a lady to whom a share had devolved by inheritance, whether during hostilities or no, I do not accurately remember; but if it was so, she had done no act whatever with regard to that property, and it might be said to have dropped by mere accident into her lap. In that case, however, it was held that the fact of sailing under the Dutch flag and pass, was decisive against the admission of any claim; and it was observed that as the vessel had been enjoying the privileges of a Dutch character, the parties could not expect to reap the advantages of such an employment, without being subject at the same time to the inconveniences attaching to it." To this case of The Elizabeth, the reporter, Dr. Robinson, has appended a note, embracing a report of the case of the "Vreede Schottys," in which the distinction intimated by the learned judge in the case of The Elizabeth, as to hostility of character, between ships and their cargoes, is clearly set forth as follows: "A great distinction has always been |