volving confiscation (≈), and the same penalty attaches to an. attempt at rescue of the ship from the lawful captors (a). For the effect of blending neutral and belligerent goods, see the subject next following. Shipment by Belligerent Vessels.-Just as it is lawful for a neutral to carry the goods of belligerents, so it is permissible to him to ship his own goods by vessels the property of belligerents (b). As has been well said, "The rule that the goods of an enemy, found in the vessel of a friend, are prize of war; and that the goods of a friend, found in the vessel of an enemy, are to be restored; is believed to be a part of the original law of nations, as generally, perhaps universally, acknowledged. This rule is founded on the simple and intelligible principle that war gives a full right to capture the goods of an enemy, but gives no right to capture the goods of a friend" (c). But this right does not extend to permit neutrals to ship by an armed belligerent vessel, for this is held to be tantamount to a resistance of the right of visit and search (d). Nor, for the same reason, may the shipment be made under convoy (e). As has been mentioned above (ƒ), if a captor finds himself unable to carry his prize into port he may destroy it, but that, before resorting to this extreme exercise of the rights of war, he should satisfy himself that the property, if taken before the Court, would be condemned. In the Franco-Prussian war two German vessels, The Ludwig and The Vorwärts (0), were captured and burnt by the French cruiser Desaix. The owners of neutral (British) goods on board the vessels, claimed compensation before a prize court at Bordeaux, relying especially on the Third Article of the Declaration of Paris, which declares that neutral goods on enemy's vessels shall be free from capture. But the Court, holding that the act of destruction was justified by force majeure, declined to award compensation. The Declaration of Paris, said the Court, exempted from confiscation neutral goods on an enemy's vessel, and entitled the owners to the proceeds in the event of sale; but it gave to neutrals no right to compensation for damages resulting from the lawful capture of the ship, or from any justifiable proceedings of the captors. Irrespective of the Declaration of Paris, innocent neutral goods on belligerent vessels have always been regarded as exempt from capture; and it would certainly seem that in such a case as the foregoing this principle of the law of nations would have been better supported by an award of compensation. For if a belligerent has no right to capture the lawful goods of a friend, the mere fact that their destruction by him is to be attributed to the exigencies of war, seems scarcely a sufficient reason for refusing to entertain the demand of the friend for compensation. It is, indeed, not easy to see on what logical grounds the principles governing such a case are to be distinguished from those applicable in cases of preemption (p). If a belligerent vessel carrying neutral goods be captured and condemned by the enemy, the latter can carry the goods to their destination, and earn the freight due thereon (g); though it does not appear that the captor is under any obli (0) Dalloz, Jurisprudence Générale, 1872, iii. 94. (p) Vide p. 248, supra, sinking of British vessels in the Seine. gation thus to complete the voyage. Apparently a neutral, if he chooses to ship by a belligerent vessel, must run the risk of having his goods landed for his own account at a port short of their destination (r). And if the neutral goods be so shipped as to be blended with enemy goods on the same vessel, or if enemy goods be fraudulently included in a claim for the restoration of neutral goods, the fate of condemnation will attach to both alike (s). But if a neutral and a belligerent subject be engaged in a joint adventure, and the property be captured, the share of the neutral will be restored, whilst that of the belligerent may be condemned (†). With respect to the effect of resistance to search, as regards neutral goods on a belligerent vessel, reference may be made to the subject" Resistance to Search," p. 212, supra. Transport of Belligerent Troops.-The Foreign Enlistment Acts, to be mentioned presently, are silent on the subject of transport of belligerent troops by neutral merchant vessels. So far, therefore, as municipal restrictions are concerned, (") The following instructions are given to Lloyd's agents as regards neutral goods in enemies' vessels: "If the country in which the agent resides is at war with any other country, and a captured vessel of that other country should be brought into any port within the agent's district, he should watch the proceedings of the prize court, and endeavour to prevent any sale of the cargo, either before or after the condemnation of the vessel as lawful prize. "In reporting the circumstance to Lloyd's, he should point out particularly what steps it will be necessary for the owners of the goods to take, whether in any local marine court, or in the central court of prize, to obtain possession of their goods, and should specify the documents which the Court will require for establishing the ownership of the goods, and for proving that the owners belong to a neutral country." (8) Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 54; The Eenrom, 2 Rob. 9; The Betsey and George, 2 Gall. 377; The St. Nicholas, 1 Wheat. 417; The Phonix Insce. Co. v. Pratt, 2 Binney, 308; The Fortuna, 3 Wheat, 236. (t) Vide p. 18, supra. such traffic is presumably not unlawful. But, as has already been pointed out (u), neutrals who thus lay themselves out to promote the warlike aims of a belligerent, do so at the risk of seizure and confiscation of the offending vessel by the foe of the belligerent whom it is sought to assist. Purchase from Belligerents.-Under "Domicile and Ownership" (x) reference has already been made to the sale, by belligerents to neutrals, of belligerent property in transitu. It may, however, be here repeated that sales by belligerents to neutrals must be absolute and unconditional, and that any sale effected with the object, or with the effect, of placing belligerent property beyond the reach of lawful capture is, by the law of nations, null and void. So, also, if goods be consigned by a neutral to a belligerent, any reservation of interest in the property in favour of the neutral shipper will in like manner be disregarded. To follow a different principle would, it is obvious, enable belligerents so to transfer or postpone their interests in property otherwise the lawful subject of condemnation, that the right of capture would be liable to become of purely nominal value. All such transfers or reservations, therefore, in the presence of actual or impending hostilities, are looked at by the prize courts of the captors with the closest scrutiny, and presumably with a bias against the neutral claimant. But if the transfer shall have taken place in such circumstances as to rebut any presumption of bad faith, the property will be deemed to be neutral. The onus of proof, however, will in all such cases lie upon the claimant. The purchase of belligerent vessels within the belligerent jurisdiction, flagrante bello--and, indeed, the purchase of belligerent vessels at all during war-is by some nations (u) Pages 207 et seq., supra. (x) P. 15, supra. declared to be altogether illegal, and is always subject to great suspicion. As has been indicated (pp. 22 et seq., supra), the strictest proof will be required as to the bona fides and unconditional nature of the sale in all such cases; and if after the purchase the vessel be found to be so employed as to support the presumption that the belligerent seller still has an interest in the property, the sale will be regarded as merely colourable. If in any case the neutral purchaser appears to be permanently resident in the country of the belligerent sellers, the circumstance will of itself create a suspicion as to the character of the sale. The right to purchase vessels from a belligerent is, however, strictly limited to merchant vessels, the purchase of a ship of war being invalid. (For further consideration of the subject of purchase of belligerent vessels reference may with advantage be made to Story's Practice of Prize Courts, p. 63.) Insurance. There would appear to be no direct legal decision whether it is lawful for a belligerent subject to insure neutral property on board a merchant vessel belonging to the adverse belligerent. It might be argued that such a shipment advances the interests and prosperity of the enemy, and that it is, therefore, repugnant to the national policy that the national subjects should effect insurances in support of such a trade. On the other hand, the trade is perfectly lawful to the neutral, neither belligerent having any right to object to it; therefore it would seem to follow that it may be insured by the subjects of either belligerent without detriment to the national war policy. This view is certainly encouraged by the observations of the Court in Gist v. Mason (y), and Barker v. Blakes (2), in which it was held that policies on neutral property destined to an enemy's port, are not unlawful. In the latter case a neutral vessel, carrying a |