illustrated by an example. Let us suppose the case of a ship furnished with documents, before there has arisen any apprehension of a war; there could then be no reason for the introduction of fraudulent papers; fraud is always inconvenient, and seldom adopted as a matter of choice; under such circumstances there is no particular ground of suspicion against the documents: -but on the other side, suppose that there is a war, or the apprehension of a war, when the documents are composed in that decided, or in that doubtful state of things, they become subject to some suspicions in limine, which suspicion may be increased by their having passed through the enemy's hands. The suspicion will be still further increased, if the property to which they relate has continued under the management or direction of the enemy. And if, in addition to all this, they carry such contradictions or difficulties on the face of them as cannot be explained, admitting the matter to be a fair transaction, all or any of these circumstances must divest the papers of their natural credit."

"It is insisted as a reasonable rule," said Lord Stowell, in The Calypso (2 Rob. 158), "that in cases where some papers are produced at first, and others kept back, you are to suppose the papers not produced to state the true and exact measure of interest. I allow that all the papers are to be taken together, but I cannot go so far as to admit that concealed papers are to be taken as necessarily containing the truth, because if such a rule was established as a principle of this court, it would let in an infinity of fraud, and make it the easiest thing in the world to protect the chief bulk of property in any case by giving up some

part upon the pretended disclosures contained in these concealed papers. The more reasonable rule would be, that where there is one set of papers admitted to be false, and another set coming out of the same hands, that the whole is thrown into a state of uncertainty and doubt."

"It has been said" (remarked Lord Stowell, in The Calypso, ub. sup.), "that false papers will not, by the law of this court, necessarily lead to condemnation, if the proof of property is clear; and that papers, false as to the destination, will not stand in the way of restitution, under the practice of the Admiralty of this country. It has been said, also, and truly, that evidence respecting the cargo does not generally affect the ship, as it may frequently happen that the owners of the cargo will, from lust of gain, put on board false papers without the knowledge or privity of the owners of the ship. But it is a very different case when the ship and cargo belong to the same persons; and, although I will not say that false papers would, even in such a case, necessarily lead to condemnation of the ship." The spoliation of papers is a still more aggravated and inflamed circumstance of suspicion. This fact may exclude further proof, and be sufficient to infer guilt; but it does not in England, or in the United States, as by the maritime law of other countries, create an absolute presumption juris et de jure. The spoliation of papers may be a circumstance open for explanation, for it may have arisen from accident, necessity, or superior force. (The Pizarro, 2 Wheat. 227.) If the explanation, however, be not prompt and frank, or be weak and futile,-if the cause labours under heavy suspicions, or there be a vehement presumption

of bad faith, or gross prevarication, it is good cause for the denial of further proof; and the condemnation ensues from defects in the evidence which the party is not at liberty to supply. In Bernardi v. Motteaux (Doug. 581), Lord Mansfield observed, that by the maritime law of all countries, throwing papers overboard is considered a strong presumption of enemy's property; though in all his experience he had never known a condemnation on that circumstance only. In The Two Brothers (1 Rob. 133), however, Lord Stowell said: "No rule can be better known, than that neutral masters are not at liberty to destroy papers; or if they do, that they will not be admitted to explain away such a suppression, by saying, 'that they were only private letters.' In all cases it must be considered a proof of mala fides; and where that appears, it is an universal rule to presume the worst against those who are convicted of it: it will always be supposed that such letters relate to the ship or cargo; and that it was of material consequence to some interests, that they should be destroyed.

"Duly documented is altogether a relative term; for a vessel may be duly documented in one case by papers which would not be sufficient documents in another. Thus, in ordinary cases, a Danish ship would be duly documented by a Danish pass, and other papers; but if she appeared to have been bought in the enemy's country during the war, a bill of sale would be necessary, and that duly verified and supported." "By fully documented papers, I mean regular papers, supported by the knowledge and testimony of the master.' (Id. The Adriana, ib. p. 317.)

It had been supposed, that under the terms of the

declaration, issued by her Majesty on the 28th of March, 1854, it was her Majesty's intention, to some extent, to relax the right of search. On the 30th of March, the Attorney-General stated, in answer to a question from Mr. Mitchell, that "it was never intended to give up, nor did the declaration give up, the right of searching neutral vessels. It was impossible to give up that right; and this country still maintains its right to search and seize vessels which carry enemy's despatches, or articles contraband of war."

CAPTURE.

With respect to the commerce of the enemy subsisting abroad, as there are, for the most part, no general ties of faith that confine the common rights of capture, the broad principle is, that such commerce is liable, by the acknowledged law of nations, to be seized and appropriated by the adverse belligerent wherever it is found. Capture, properly so called, bearing avowedly a warlike complexion, is said to be made (2 Marshall on Insurance, 422) where a ship is subdued and taken, either by a pirate or by an enemy, whether in open war or by way of reprisals, and whether with intent to appropriate both ship and cargo, or only certain hostile or contraband goods found on board. Of capture by a pirate, nothing need be said, for that is illegal by all laws, human and divine: we confine ourselves to the consideration of capture by an enemy. The case of The Jonge Jacobus, Baumann (1 Rob. 243), is a striking instance of what may, or

may not, be considered a capture; the vessel bearing that name was boarded one morning by an officer and several men belonging to The Apollo frigate, then lying stranded and in distress, who told the master, a neutral, that he must go down to the assistance of the frigate. The master accordingly went down, and took the whole of the crew on board, to the number of one hundred and seventy or one hundred and eighty men. The ship arrived at Yarmouth three days afterwards, and was navigated, during the passage, by the master himself and his own crew, except that the pilot belonging to the frigate steered through the banks of Yarmouth. On arriving at Yarmouth, the persons who had been thus preserved had the ingratitude to proceed against the ship as a prize, which they alleged themselves to have taken, on a suspicion of her being engaged in a hostile trade. Lord Stowell said: "If the ship had really belonged to an enemy, in my opinion the character of enemy itself must have been blotted out and obliterated by such a service as this. If I was compelled to condemn this ship, it would be a most reluctant condemnation indeed. I hope and trust that, if the circumstances are true as stated by the master, a condemnation of the vessel would be the very last thing to present itself to the expectation of the asserted captors."

The legality of a capture may, under circumstances, exclusively depend upon the ordinances of the government of the captors. If, for instance, the sovereign should by a special order authorize the capture of neutral property for a cause manifestly unfounded in the law of nations, there can be no doubt, that it would afford a complete justification of the captors, in all tribunals