ter as to the trade carried on at Ostend, I cannot think that it will give such a colour to his other commerce as to make that liable for the frauds of his Ostend trade; as far as the person is concerned, there is a neutral residence; as far as the commerce is concerned, the nature of the transaction and the destination are perfectly neutral, unless it can be said that trading in an enemy's commerce makes the man, as to all his concerns, an enemy; or that, being engaged in a house of trade in the enemy's country, would give a general character to all his transactions. I do not see how the consequences of Mr. Ostermeyer's trading to Ostend can affect his commerce in other parts of the world. I know of no case, nor of any principle, that would support such a position as this, that a man having a house of trade in the enemy's country, as well as in a neutral country, should be considered in his whole concerns as an enemy's merchant, as well in those which respected solely his neutral house, as in those which belonged to his belligerent domicil." (See 1 Camp. 76.)

As by the commencement of a residence in a hostile state, a hostile character is acquired, so it is terminated by the cessation of that residence. This is decided in the case of The Indian Chief (3 Rob. 12).

"It is a doctrine, supported by strong principles of equity and propriety," said Lord Stowell, in The Vigilantia (1 Rob. 13; see also The Portland, 3 Rob. 41)," that there is a traffic which stamps a national character in the individual, independent of that character which mere personal residence may give. And it was expressly laid down in the case of The Nancy and other ships, which was heard before the Lords on

the 9th of April, 1798, 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."-This position, that he who maintained an establishment, or house of commerce, in a hostile country, is to be considered as impressed with a hostile character, with reference to so much of his commerce, as may be connected with that establishment, is confirmed by a great variety of other cases; which prove, too, that the rule is the same, whether he maintained that establishment as a partner, or as a sole trader. (3 Rob. 31.)

The national character of a vessel, where there is nothing particular or special in the conduct of the vessel itself, is determined by the residence of the owner; but there may be circumstances arising from that conduct, which will lead to a contrary conclusion. It is a known and established rule with respect to a vessel, that if she is navigating under the pass of a foreign country, she is considered as bearing the national character of that nation under whose pass she sails; she makes a part of its navigation, and is, in every respect, liable to be considered as a vessel of that country. In like manner, and upon similar principles, if a vessel purchased in the enemy's country is, by constant and habitual occupation, continually employed in the trade of that country, commencing with the war, continuing during the war, and evidently on account of the war, that vessel is to be deemed a ship of the country from which she is so navigating, in the same manner as if she evidently belonged to the inhabitants of it.

"Here"-continued Lord Stowell, in condemning The Vigilantia (1 Robinson, 1)-is a Dutch-built vessel, a Dutch fishing vessel, that went from Amsterdam, regularly and habitually, to Greenland, and to return to Amsterdam, there to deliver her cargo; she is purchased in Holland; she is purchased avowedly for the purpose of pursuing the same course of commerce, the fishing trade of Holland; she is purchased at a time when, it is said, there was a defect of conveniences for carrying on this trade at Embden [the alleged residence of the master, but where he himself swore he had never been in his life]; but I am satisfied it was the intention of the parties to carry on this trade to and from Amsterdam. Now I ask upon what grounds is it that this vessel, so purchased and so employed, is to be considered merely as a Prussian vessel? Here is a ship as thoroughly engaged and incorporated in Dutch commerce as a ship can possibly be; she is fitted out uniformly from Amsterdam; she is fitted out with Dutch manufacture; she is fitted out for Dutch importation, in all respects employing and feeding the industry of that country. She is managed by a Dutch ship's-husband, and finding occupation for the commercial knowledge and industry of the subjects of that country; she is commanded by a Dutch captain; she is manned by a Dutch crew, and brings back the produce of her voyage for the purpose of 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 Saint Eustatius, and the other in Denmark, who were partners in a house of trade at Saint 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 Saint 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. 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.""

In a subsequent case (The Embden, Robinson, i. 16), which it was sought to discriminate from the preceding by the circumstance that the master was a Prussian born, Lord Stowell said: "I think he has scarcely a right to be considered as a Prussian subject; he is a single man who has established no domicil by family connections; and in his own person he has been employed constantly for ten years in trading from Amsterdam to Greenland; by such an occupation he is divested of his national character, and becomes, by adoption, a perfect Dutchman." The principle was affirmed by the House of Lords, on appeal, Feb. 10, 1800.

Again, in the case of (The Endraught, 1 Robinson, 21), Lord Stowell said, "mere nominal residence will not suffice. The residence which the Court requires must be taken up honestly, with a bonâ fide intention of making it the place of habitation."

Another mode in which a hostile character may be impressed, is by dealing in those branches of commerce which are usually confined to the subjects of the adverse belligerents themselves. The rule on this