of information. The appeal cases will furnish some further means of knowledge, and so will the records of the court itself; but to examine them requires much time and the expenditure of great labor. After all, as I have already observed, the usage of the court, the every-day practice, can only be known thoroughly by those who have had opportunity of observing it daily," and," very few survive who can speak from their own personal experience." This recent declaration, so authentic, and emanating from a source which, at the time, might indubitably be deemed the highest living authority, would seem to be conclusive. To go beyond or behind it appears to be superfluous. If it do not absolutely ignore the antecedent, fragmentary, immethodical, and meagre reported cases, it does, at least, imply that, practically, they are of secondary value and importance, in enunciating the principles of prize law, as applicable to the belligerent right of blockade, or embodying the rules of practice and proceeding in prize courts. Undoubtedly, all of value in those earlier cases may be found better expressed and set forth in the later decisions of Scott and Lushington. As matter of curious speculation and learning, it may be agreeable, if not positively useful, for the American student to refer to them for the purpose of noticing the then British view taken of the American Revolution, and the political status of American citizens; and of observing also the manner in which Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Hamburg, Prussian, French, Portuguese, Lubec, English, and three American ships (the Dickenson, Hope, and Rebecca) were dealt with and disposed of, between the years 1776 and 1779, by Sir George Hay, as judge of the Admiralty, and by Sir James Marriott as King's 508 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES advocate and judge of the same court; and especially to read the arguments of the latter in the Dickenson (H. and M. 1) on droits in Admiralty, and also in the Hendrick and Alida (H. and M. 96) on the transportation of arms and munitions of war by the Dutch to aid the provincial army. Beyond these matters, and the judicial relief and humanity extended to non-abjuring English subjects, escaping, sometimes, with indigo and other property, from the Carolinas, but little of legal value can be attached to those earlier Admiralty Reports of Hay and Marriott. It may, therefore, be safely assumed and upon such assumption, stated, that if, in this work, there shall be furnished a continued complete synopsis or succinct statement of the confessedly reliable English Reports on blockade, then the "principal sources of information" will have been exhausted; and nothing further will remain to be done, but to add those most important reported cases on blockade, growing out of the Russian war of 1854, in which Dr. Lushington has so conspicuously displayed his perfect familiarity with the earlier authorities, as well as his preeminent judicial ability in prize proceedings and practice generally. And with this addition, the list of English authorities may be considered as complete; after which, the student's attention will be invited to the American authorities. In Edwards's Reports, the leading doctrines there recognized were that if a neutral master voluntarily enter a blockaded port, and there, by compulsion, make sale of his neutral cargo to belligerent and hostile purchasers, such compulsory sale will not be deemed sufficient to excuse it; that neutral vessels are not permitted to proceed to blockaded ports, in order to bring away cargo purchased prior to the blockade; that a ship may not go into a blockaded port for the purpose of procuring a pilot for another port; that, although a vessel, driven in by stress of weather, may come out again with her original cargo on board, yet a permit to proceed and enter an interdicted port, given by a British officer, would not be regarded as a legal and sufficient excuse for passing the blockade. The cases touching this subject in Dr. Edwards's Reports are the Comet, p. 32; the Mercurius, ibid. 53; the Five Gebroeders, ibid. 95, which decides that the alteration of a license is a fraudulent act, which would cancel or impliedly revoke its permission; the Forsigheid, ibid. 124; the Byfield, ibid, 188; the Luna, ibid. 190; the Elizabeth, ibid. 198; the Arthur, ibid. 202; the Mentor, ibid. 207; the Madison, ibid. 224; the Rapid, ibid. 228; the Courier, ibid. 249; the Charlotta, ibid. 252; the James Cook, ibid. 261; the Fox et alii, ibid. 311, and the Snipe et al. ibid. 381: together with quite a number of cases respecting licenses, from page 327 to page 381. The Comet (supra) was an American vessel, captured on a voyage from New York to Nantes in France, under a special permit of the President of the United States, to leave the States, without incurring the penalties attaching to a violation of the American Embargo. This embargo was established in December, 1807; repealed in 1809. The order in council restricting trade with enemy (or French) ports was passed Nov. 11, 1807. The vessel sailed in ballast, to bring away French produce, which American merchants had procured prior to the date of the British restricting order. Under the ac 510 ENGLISH AUTHORITIES cepted relaxation of the rule of blockade, neutrals may sometimes depart with cargo from a blockaded port, but they cannot enter a port under blockade. Sir Wm. Scott conceded the rule to have "been so far relaxed as to permit an egress to ships innocently in the port before the restriction was imposed, and even with cargoes, if previously laden; but in the case of ingress there is not the same reason for indulgence; there can be no surprise upon the parties; and, therefore, nothing short of physical necessity has been admitted as an adequate excuse for making the attempt of entry. Generally, where a neutral ship is proceeding to a blockaded port, it must be supposed that she is going there for the purposes of trade. If she goes in ballast, it cannot be with the intention of being laid up for an indefinite time in a foreign port until the blockade is raised. It is a presumption which this court, acting on reasonable principles, is bound to entertain and apply, that she has no other errand there than to keep alive that commercial intercourse with the interdicted port which it is the object of the blockade to prevent. In some cases, no doubt, the rules of blockade are attended with considerable inconvenience to neutrals in abridg ing their trade, and it is always much to be lamented when they do; but they are inconveniences which arise necessarily out of a state of war, and what neutrals must submit to, looking as well to the rights of belligerents as to the interest which they themselves derive from their neutrality, and which furnish no small compensation." pp. 32, 33. The President's permit " can only have been intended to exempt this American vessel from the penalties attaching to the violation of their own embargo, for it cannot be supposed that a government of a neutral state would assume to itself the power of relaxing a blockade. That right rests in the belligerent alone, and meaning to express myself with all the reverence which is due to the governments of neutral nations, I must observe that it is not to be expected that the belligerent country should trust the preservation of its rights to the vigilance of others. The relaxation must be the act of the belligerent upon a representation made on the part of the neutral state, or under a compact between the two governments, where it has been found to press with undue severity on the commerce of the neutral state." The ship was condemned; and on appeal to the superior court, the decree of condemnation was affirmed, March 3d, 1810. The Mercurius (supra) was a Bremen ship, captured while proceeding from Bordeaux to Bremen with a cargo of brandies, but directed to make for an intermediate port in England to obtain a license therefor. The imputation was a fraudulent breach of the order in council passed January 7th, 1807. The court did not "regard it as a fraudulent continuous voyage;" but, on the contrary, the ship's actual destination as directed was sufficient proof of an honest intention to come to this country to procure a license, and to act conformably to it when granted," and therefore restored on payment of captor's expenses. In the Luna (supra), Sir Wm. Scott, in reference to issued orders in council, said: "It is the duty of the officers of his Majesty's navy to carry them into effect; and although they may be of a nature to require a great deal of attentive consideration, gentlemen of the |