point may be collected from the case of The Princesa, (2 Robinson, 49).

I

"This," said Lord Stowell, " 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 subjects are entitled to the privilege of having money brought from that colony to Spain. 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 character. 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 character, 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."

That he who is permitted by the enemy to deal, and does deal accordingly, in branches of commerce, usually confined to the subjects of the enemy, must be deemed an enemy himself, is further established by the case of The Anna Catharina (4 Rob. 107), in which there was a contract between the Spanish Government, then at war with this country, and certain persons claiming to be considered as neutrals. But the Court held, that as the contract was of so privileged a nature, that none but Spanish merchants would have been admitted to it; and not even Spanish merchants merely as such, it did in fact carry

with it, in the hands of the contractors, a character decidedly Spanish, and that character was held to adhere to the contract, not only in the hands of the party with whom it was originally made, but when in the hands of those whom he had subsequently admitted to share it. "It is by nothing peculiar in his own character," said Lord Stowell," 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 person, but that he may dole it out to an hundred other persons, who in their respective portions are to have the entire benefit, but are not to be liable to the effect of any such imputations. The consequence would be, that such a contract would be protected, in the only mode in which it could be carried into effect; for a contract of such extent must be distributed; and if every subordinate person is protected, then here is a contract which concludes the original undertaker of the whole, but in no degree affects one of those persons who carry that whole into execution."

The hostile character annexable to the property of the neutral, engaged in a trade peculiar to the enemy, comprehends a strict exclusive colonial trade from the colony of the mother country, where the trade is limited to native subjects by the fundamental regulations of the state, and the national character is required to be

established by oath, as in the case of the Spanish register ships. (Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Robinson, 161.)

There are yet other modes in which a hostile character may be affixed to property. Such is the sailing of the vessel under the flag and pass of an enemy. The case which most distinctly decides this point is that of The Elizabeth (5 Rob. 2). "By the established rules of law," said Lord Stowell, "it has been decided that a vessel sailing under the colours and pass of a nation is to be considered 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 always 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 recognised 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 inconveniencies attaching on it." To this case of The Elizabeth (5 Rob. 2), Sir C. Robinson has subjoined a note, containing a report of the case of The Vreede Schottys, in which the Court laid down the distinction as to hostility of character between the ships and the cargo, in the following terms :-"A great distinction has been always made by the nations of Europe, between ships and goods; some countries have gone so far as to make the flag and pass of the ship conclusive on the cargo also, but this country has never carried the principle to that extent. It holds the ship bound by the character imposed upon it by the authority of the government, from which all the documents issue. But goods which have no such dependence upon the authority of the state may be differently considered."

The doctrine of the federal Courts in the United States has been very strict on this point; and it has been frequently decided (The Julia, 1 Gall. 605, 8 Cranch, 181; The Aurora, ib. 203; The Hiram, ib. 444; The Ariadne, 2 Wheaton, 100), that sailing under the licence and passport of protection of the enemy, in furtherance of his views and interests, was, without regard to the object of the voyage, or the port of destination, such an act of illegality as subjected both ship and cargo to confiscation as prize of war. The federal Courts placed the objection to these licences on the grouud of a pacific dealing with the enemy, and as amounting to a contract, that the party to whom the licence is given should, for that voyage, withdraw himself from the war, and enjoy the repose and blessings of peace. The illegality of such an intercourse was strongly condemned; and it was held, that the moment the vessel sailed on the Voyage with an enemy's

licence on board, the offence was irrevocably committed and consummated, and that the delictum was not done away even by the termination of the voyage, but the vessel and cargo might be seized after arrival in a port of the United States, and condemned as lawful prize.

In

Goods, which, at the commencement of the voyage, have borne a hostile character, cannot, as a rule, change that character on their passage or in transitu. "The first objection that has been taken is, that such a transfer is invalid, and cannot be set up in a prize court, where the property is always considered to remain in the same character in which it was shipped till the delivery. If that could be maintained, there would be an end of the question, because it has been admitted that these wines were shipped as Spanish property, and that Spanish property is now become liable to condemnation. But I apprehend it is a position which cannot be maintained in that extent. the ordinary course of things in time of peace--for it is not denied that such a contract may be and effectually made (according to the usage of merchants)-such a transfer in transitu might certainly be made. It has even been contended that a mere delivery of the bill of lading is a transfer of the property. But it might be more correctly expressed, perhaps, if said that it transfers only the right of delivery; but that a transfer of the bill of lading, with a contract of sale accompanying it, may transfer the property in the ordinary course of things, so as effectually to bind the parties, and all others, cannot be well doubted. When war intervenes, another rule is set up by Courts of Admiralty, which interferes with the ordinary practice. In a state of war, existing or imminent, it is held that the property