portion from Ostend to the Seine was to be considered as under the most rigorous blockade, while the remainder was open to neutral vessels not laden with enemies' goods, nor with goods contraband of war, nor guilty of a previous violation of blockade, nor sent from the ports of enemies of the British government.

Berlin decree.

This measure led to the Berlin decree of Bonaparte, bearing the date of November 21, 1806. In this decree, issued from the capital of subjugated Prussia, after reciting the infractions of international law with which England was chargeable, the Emperor declares the British islands to be under blockade, and all commerce with them to be forbidden, English manufactures to be lawful prize, and vessels from ports of England or her colonies to be excluded from all ports, and to be liable to confiscation, if they should contravene the edict by false papers.

First Orders in Council.

The Berlin decree "rendered every neutral vessel going from English ports with cargoes of English merchandise, or of English origin, lawfully seizable by French armed vessels." 1 The British government was not slow in its retaliation. By an Order in Council, dated January 7, 1807, it was declared "that no vessel should be permitted to sail from one port to another, both of which ports should belong to or be in the possession of France or her allies, or should be so far under their control, that British vessels might not trade thereat." And by a second Order in Council, dated November 11, 1807, it was declared that, as the previous order Orders in had not induced the enemy to alter his measures, all places of France, her allies and her colonies, as also of states at peace with Great Britain and yet excluding her flag, should be under the same restrictions as to commerce, as if they were blockaded by British forces. All commerce in the productions of such states was pronounced illegal, and all vessels so engaged, with their cargoes, if taken, were to be adjudged lawful prize. But neutrals might trade with the colo

Second

Council.

1 Words of M. Champagny, French minister of foreign relations, October 7,

nies, or even with the ports of states thus under the ban, for goods to be consumed by themselves, provided they either started from or entered into a British port, or sailed directly from the enemies' colonies to a port of their own state. Moreover, as certain neutrals had obtained from the enemy "certificates of origin," so called, to the effect that the cargoes of their vessels were not of British manufacture, it was ordered that vessels, carrying such certificates, together with the part of the cargo covered by them, should be confiscated, as the prize of the captor. A supplement to this order declared that ships sold by the enemy to a neutral would be deemed illegally sold, and be considered lawful prize, while another supplement regulated the manner in which neutrals must carry on their commerce, and prescribed licenses, without which trade in certain articles would be held unlawful.

Milan

decree.

Against these orders the French Emperor fulminated the Milan decree of December 17, 1807, declaring that every vessel which submitted to be searched by an English cruiser, or to make a voyage to England, or to pay a tax to the English government, had lost the right to its own flag, and had become English property; that such vessels falling into the hands of French cruisers, or entering French ports, would be regarded as lawful prize; and that every vessel holding communication with Great Britain or with her colonies, if taken, would be condemned.

Measures of

States.

These arbitrary extensions of the right of war, by which neutral rights were sacrificed to the retaliation of the belligerents, were calculated to grind to pieces the the United few remaining neutral powers. The United States, being the principal state in this condition, made strong complaints, the disregard of which led to more positive measures. In December, 1807, an embargo was laid on commercial vessels in the ports of the United States, and in March, 1809, was passed an act prohibiting intercourse with France and England, until their restrictions on neutral commerce should be removed; which act was to continue in force towards either country, until it should revoke its obnoxious decrees.

British Orders in

Council of

This led to some relaxation on the part of Great Britain. By an order in council of April 20, 1809, the ports of Holland, France, and Northern Italy, were to be April, 1809. placed under blockade, while the rest of the coast, embraced under previous orders, was opened to neutral commerce. Napoleon, as yet, however, relaxed his system of measures in no degree. In 1810, he ordered all British manufactures found in France to be burnt, and the same regulation extended to the states under French supremacy. This would seem to show that the prohibition of trade with England was not rigidly enforced, which was owing in part to the deficiency of the French naval force, and in part to the great demand for British manufactures and the venality of revenue officers. On the other hand, the English, being masters of the sea, were able to make their orders in council good against neutral commerce. It would seem that there was an understanding between the French government and our own, that the Berlin decree should not be put into force against our vessels.

Such continued to be the state of things until 1812, when the French government annulled its obnoxious decrees, and the British, upon being made acquainted with the fact, rescinded their retaliatory orders, as far as concerned American goods on American vessels. This took place June the 23d, not in time to prevent the war with Great Britain, which the United States had already begun in the same month, and a principal pretext for which was these same Orders in Council.

Doctrine of continuous

§ 207.

The doctrine of continued or continuous voyages, which Sir W. Scott, afterwards Lord Stowell, originated, deserves to be noticed, and may be noticed here, alVoyages. though it first arose in reference to colonial trade with another country, carried on by neutrals. As the English courts condemned such trade, the neutrals in the first part of this century, especially shippers and captains belonging to the United States, tried to evade the rule by stopping at a neutral port and seeming to pay duties, and then, perhaps, after land

ing and relading the cargoes, carried them to the mother-country of the colony. The motive for this was, that if the goods in question were bona fide imported from the neutral country, the transaction was a regular one. The courts held, that if an original intention could be proved of carrying the goods from the colony to the mother-country, the proceedings in the neutral territory, even if they amounted to landing goods and paying duties, could not overcome the evidence of such intention; the voyage was really a continued one artfully interrupted, and the penalties of law had to take effect. Evidence, therefore, of original intention and destination was the turning-point in such cases. (See, especially, the case of the Polly, Robinson's Rep., ii., 361–372, the cases of the Maria, and of the William, ibid., v., 365-372, and 385-406, and the cases there mentioned.)

The principle of continuous voyages will apply when cases of contraband, attempt to break blockade, etc., come up before courts which accept this English doctrine. In our late war many British vessels went to Nassau, and either landed their cargoes destined for Confederate ports there, to be carried forward in some other vessel, or stopped at that port as a convenient place for a new start towards Charleston or some other harbor. If an intention to enter a blockaded port can be shown, the vessel and the cargo, as is said in the text, are subject to capture according to English and American doctrine from the time of setting sail. Now the doctrine of continuous voyages has been so applied by our Supreme Court, that it matters not if the vessel stops at a neutral port, or unlades its cargo and another vessel conveys it onward, or if formalities of consignment to a person at the neutral port, or the payment even of duties are used to cover the transaction: provided destination to the blockaded port, or, in the case of contraband, to the hostile country, can be established, the ship on any part of its voyage, and the cargo before and after being landed, are held to be liable to confiscation. Or, if again the master of the vessel was ordered to stop at the neutral port to ascertain what the danger was of continuing the voyage to the

blockaded harbor, still guilt rested on the parties to the transaction as before. All this seems a natural extension of the English principle of continued voyages, as at first given out; but there is danger that courts will infer intention on insufficient grounds. A still bolder extension was given to it by our courts in the case of vessels and goods bound to the Rio Grande, the goods being then carried up by lighters to Matamoras. We could not prohibit neutrals from sending goods to the Mexican side of that river; but if it could be made to appear that the goods were destined for the side belonging to the United States, that was held to be sufficient ground for condemnation of them; although, in order to reach their destination, they would need overland carriage over neutral territory. (See Prof. Bernard's "British Neutrality," 307-317, and comp. Dana's note 231 on Wheaton, § 508.)

Dr. Ludwig Gessner, author of the work before cited, "Droits des Neutres sur Mer," gives a certain assent to the principle of continuous voyages. In remarks on the condemnation of the Springbok by our courts, he coincides with the opinion, "that a capture can be justified, even when the immediate destination is a neutral port, if it can be proved beyond doubt that the contraband of war is destined for the enemy." But if proof beyond doubt is required, his limitation is not a very practical one. (Opinion of L. Gessner, etc., London, 1869, from the "Norddeutsche Allg. Zeitg." of December 29 and 30, 1868.)

$ 208.

In order to enforce the right of preventing neutrals from The right of conveying hostile or contraband goods on their ships, search. and from breaking blockade, it is necessary that the belligerents should be invested with the right of search or visit. By this is intended the right to stop a neutral vessel on the high seas, to go on board of her, to examine her papers, and, it may be, even her cargo, in short, to ascertain by personal inspection that she is not engaged in the infraction of any of the rights above enumerated.

The right of search is by its nature confined within narrow