Слике страница
PDF
ePub

residence attaches, though he may have found it convenient to avoid the personal burden of its functions. In The Dree Gebroeders (4 Rob. 232), the claimant, who represented himself as an American, stated in his affidavit, that the government of the United States had appointed him Consul-General for Scotland, but that he had not yet acted further in that capacity than to appoint deputies. Lord Stowell said, "It will be a strong circumstance to affect him with a British residence, as long as there are persons acting in an official situation here, and deriving their authority from him. (See also Vattel, B. 4, c. 8, s. 114; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 22.)

To establish the animus manendi, the external circumstances need not be notorious or numerous; the intention of remaining will still be the decisive proof. In The Jonge Klassina (5 Rob. 297), the claimant, wishing to persuade the Court that he was not to be deemed a resident in the hostile country, pleaded that he had no fixed counting-house there. Lord Stowell said, "That he had no fixed counting-house in the enemy's country will not be decisive. How much of the great mercantile concerns of this kingdom is carried on in coffee-houses? A very considerable portion of the great insurance business is so conducted. It is indeed a vain idea, that a counting-house or fixed establishment is necessary to make a man a merchant of any place: if he is there himself, and acts as a merchant of that place, it is sufficient; and the mere want of a fixed counting-house there will make no breach in the mercantile character, which may well exist without it."

Persons affected with hostile residence, in a hos

tile or neutral country, are to be deemed enemies only with reference to the seizure of so much of their commerce as is connected with that residence or establishment. Lord Stowell lays it down, in The Jonge Klassina (5 Rob. 297), "That a man having mercantile concerns in two countries, and acting as a merchant of both, must be liable to be considered as a subject of both, with regard to the transactions originating respectively in those countries." So, too, in The Herman (4 Rob. 228), Lord Stowell said, "The personal domicil of the claimant is at Embden, where he resides, and has a house of trade; he is only connected with this country by his partnership in a house here, which is to be taken in a manner as collateral, and secondary to his house at Embden; that he may carry on trade with the enemy at his house in Embden cannot be denied, provided it does not originate from his house at London, nor vest an interest in that house."

The case of The Portland, and nine other ships (3 Rob. 41), still more precisely establishes the distinction, in respect of liability to capture, between the trade which a merchant may be carrying on to his hostile, and that which he he may be carrying on to his neutral establishment. The claimant resided in a neutral territory, but he had two settlements, or places of resort for his business; one in a neutral territory, and the other in a hostile country, at Ostend. Lord Stowell said, "As to the circumstance of his being engaged in trading with Ostend, I think it will be difficult to extend the consequences of that act, whatever they may be, to the trade which he was carrying on at Hamburgh, and having no connection with Ostend; because, call it what you please, a colourable charac

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

« ПретходнаНастави »