Again, if neutral ships carry the soldiers of our enemy, it would not be allowable to make them prisoners, because we must not attack the territory of a neutral. Either the argument is worth nothing originally, or it holds to this extent, which is a reductio ad absurdum. To escape contradiction, the right of search, and of seizing contraband, must be denied, if the right to protect enemy's goods be claimed on this ground. the above arguments. This is a short, but, it is very earnestly hoped, impar- Summary of tial statement of the arguments on this question, as far as it depends on the deductions of reason, or, in other words, on the Law of Nature. It has been shown how groundless is the accusation that, to prevent neutrals from screening enemy's property is an invasion of neutral rights. No restraint is placed on neutral commerce, as far as neutrals themselves are concerned. They are at full liberty to trade with belligerents on their own account, as in times of peace; to purchase any merchandise in a belligerent's country; and to carry all their own produce and manufactures, excepting contraband, to a belligerent. All that is denied them is a power to interfere with the rights of a belligerent. In the words of Mr. Ward, neutrals are at liberty to trade with, but not for, a belligerent. One chief purpose of maritime warfare is the destruction of the commerce of the enemy. The claim of neutrals to protect enemy's goods on board their vessels, would directly frustrate this purpose. It would be an interference with a belligerent's rights, and, so far from being a right of neutrals, it would be a violation of the duties of neutrals. It may be said, in conclusion, although the assertion is a strong one, that neutrals, if possessed of this protecting power, would, in many cases, do more harm to a belligerent than if they were actually his enemies. If, for instance, Denmark, the state that has been most eager in these pretensions, had, in a maritime war in which Great Britain was engaged against the con tinental powers, the privilege of carrying on the commerce of those states, with exemption from our capture, she would do us much more injury than if actually our enemy. In the latter contingency, the number of our enemies would receive an addition which would be little felt by us while, on the former supposition, an assistance would be given to our enemies that would incalculably augment their resources, and increase the amount of force which they might bring to the encounter. Even the real instigator of all these pretensions, interest, would fail to be on the side of such neutral claims; for, if these were allowed among the rights of neutrals, no powerful belligerent would allow a small state to remain neutral in a maritime war: a declaration of war would be among the necessary measures of self defence. Value of such an inquiry. SECTION II. The Opinions of the Authorities on the Law of Nations with regard to this Question. The next consideration is, what have been the decisions of the European law, as declared in the writings of those eminent jurists whose inquiries were directed to the elucidation of Right between Nations; whose writings have been recognized by all governments, if not as the exact measure of justice, at least as the surest guides to its discovery; and whose works must ever retain the value which first attached to them, from their claims to reference as containing the demonstration of what equity commands. the Consolato del Mare. The law first examined, will be one of which the in- The decision of fluence was of great extent, as respects the numbers whom its authority controlled, as well as of long duration in its action; but of which the authors or compilers are now unknown, while the date of its promulgation is equally lost in antiquity. The very ancient laws of the Rhodians, the earliest maritime code extant, make no mention of this question; but the maritime code next in point of time, though with the interval of at least ten centuries, is explicit in its declarations on this question. The following is the law referred to, as translated from the celebrated Consolato del Mare. (1) Ch. CCLXXIII. § 1. "If an armed ship, or cruizer, "meet with a merchant vessel belonging to an enemy, "and carrying a cargo the property of an enemy, com"mon sense will sufficiently point out what is to be done; "it is therefore unnecessary to lay down any rules for "such a case. § 2. "If the captured vessel is neutral property, and "the cargo the property of enemies, the captor may "compel the merchant vessel to carry the enemy's cargo "to a place of safety, where the prize may be secure "from all danger of re-capture, paying the vessel the "whole freight which she would have earned at her de"livering port; and this freight shall be ascertained from "the ship's papers; or, in default of necessary documents, "the oath of the master shall be received as to the "amount of freight. § 3. "Moreover, if the captor is in a place of safety, "where he may be secure of his prize, yet is desirous to (1) Copied from Sir C. Robinson's "Translation of the chapters CCLXXIII. and CCLXXXVII. of the Consolato del Mare re- "have the cargo carried to some other port, the neutral "vessel is bound to carry it thither; but, for this service, "there ought to be a compensation agreed upon between "them; or, in default of any special agreement, the "merchant vessel shall receive for that service the ordi 66 nary freight that any other vessel would have earned "for such a voyage, or even more; and this is to be "understood of a ship that has arrived in the place "where the captor may secure his prize, that is to say "in the port of a friend, and going on an ulterior voyage "to that port, to which the captor wishes her to carry "the cargo which he has taken. § 4. "If it shall happen that the master of the cap"tured vessel, or any of the crew, shall claim any part "of the cargo as their own, they ought not to be believed on their simple word; but the ship's papers or invoice "shall be inspected; and in defect of such papers, the "master and his mariners shall be put to their oaths; "and if, on their oaths, they claim the property as their "own, the captor shall restore it to them, regard being "paid, at the same time, to the credit of those who swear "and make the claim. § 5. "If the master of the captured vessel shall refuse "to carry the cargo, being enemy's property, to some "such place of safety, at the command of the captor, the 66 captor may sink the vessel if he thinks fit, without con❝trol from any power or authority whatever, taking care "to preserve the lives of those who are in her. This "must be understood, however, of a case where the whole cargo, or at least the greater part, is enemy's property. $6. "If the ship should belong to the enemy, the "cargo being either in the whole, or in part, neutral "property; some reasonable agreement should be "entered into on account of the ship, now become lawful "prize, between the captor and the merchant owning the cargo. 86 § 7. "If the merchants refuse to enter into such an agreement, the captor may send the vessel home to the "country whose commission he bears; and, in that case, "the merchants shall pay the freight which they were to "have paid at the delivering port; and if any damage is "occasioned by this proceeding, the captor is not bound "to make compensation, because the merchant had "refused to treat respecting the ship after it had become "lawful prize; and for this further reason also, that the ship is frequently of more value than the cargo she "carries. $8. "If, on the other hand, the merchants are willing to come to a reasonable agreement, and the captor "from arrogance, or other wrong motives, refuses to agree, and forcibly sends the cargo away, the merchants are not bound to pay the whole, nor any part of the freight; and, besides, the captor shall make compen"sation for any damage he may occasion to them. 66 § 9. "If the capture should be made in a place where "the merchants have it not in their power to make good "their agreement, but are nevertheless men of repute "and worthy to be trusted, the captor shall not send 66 away the vessel without being liable for damage; but "if the merchants are not men of known credit, and can"not make good their stipulated payment, he may then "act as above directed." the Consolato del Mare. Such are the provisions of this valuable maritime code, Authority of which contained, on the authority of Grotius, the constitutions of the Greek and German Emperors, of France, Spain, Syria, Cyprus, the Balearic Isles, the Venetians and the Genoese; and which, after thus |