Doctrine of Continuous Voyages.— More than a century ago the United States was en gaged in a controversy with Great Britain over the question whether carrying a cargo from a belligerent port to a port of the United States (then a neutral) and thence to another belligerent port was a °continuous voyage° l which would justify the capture of an American carrier. The United States stood for the prin ciple that °free ships make free goods° ; and insisted that if the cargo was actually unloaded and reloaded in the American port it was the object of two voyages, both of which were pre . sumably innocent.
In the Civil War a similar question came i lip and the United States now took the ground i that a cargo carried from Europe to a European ' colony and thence shipped, either in the same _ ...
vessel or in another bottom, to a port of the Southern Confederacy, was engaged in an un neutral voyage and was subject to capture. The courts of the United States upheld such cap tures in the test cases of the Dolphin and Pearl, the Stephen Hart, the Volant, the Springbok, the Peterhof)* and others. The Supreme Court of the United States confirmed the principle of these captures.
Most of these decisions justified the cap tures on two grounds: the nature of the cargo if contraband, and the ultimate destination whether the cargo was contraband or innocent,' if on the way to a blockaded port. All the captures of vessels not actually proceeding to or from a blockaded port which were ap proved finally by the Supreme Court, were for transfers in winch both legs of the travel were on the sea, and the ultimate destination was ani enemy belligerent (Confederate) po.rt. In the Volant and Peterhoff cases the destination was Matamoros, Mexico, whence the goods were -to be carned over land to the Confederacy. In both these cases only the capture of the absolute contraband part of the cargo was justified; the ship and remainder of the cargo were rtleased.
A very. different system was inaugurated hy Great Bntain by a succession of Orders in I Council and diplomatic notes beginning 1 March 1915. It was put forth first as °an embargo° and at no time was there a formal proclamation of a °blockade° although Sir Edward Grey (13 March 1915) asserted that °the British I, fleet has instituted a blockade effectively con- t, trolling by cruiser (cordon) all passage to and . from Germany by sea.° This process, however,
could not properly be called a blockade be cause it included restrictions on the entry of vessels into Scandinavian and Dutch ports, which being neutral could not possibly be sub ject to technical blockade. Furthermore, the policy included the assignment of a passage around the north of the British Islands to all vessels hound to Northern Europe and the-stop page_aaltletwation-ler-examination of all com merce.
-The real purpg_se af this policy was to shut off all nelitiali-nrgoes. which m the judgment of the itritish,govenuneakmight Lie transported into Germaiiy. or might_set free other com modifies_fican thetieatcal crw,trik-s. whicia-could then be carried into German . The United \ Stafes Fe-plie declaring that °the Order in Council wou d constitute a practical assertion of unlimited belligerent rights over neutral commerce within the whole Euro pean area and an almost unqualified denial of the sovereign rights of the nations now at peace.° Nevertheless, this remonstrance was not pushed home upon England, even when a list was drawn up by the American government, showing that from 50 to 55 American vessels had been compelled to interrupt their voyage at the British observation port of Ickicivall in the Orlatey Islands. The controversy with Ger many over the Lusitania turned public atten tion in another direction ; and the United States practically submitted to the British interpreta-/ tion of international law.
The policy of embargo, for it was not en- ( titled to be called or applied as blockade, was vigorously followed. The British government refused to allow American vessels to coal unless they would enter arrangemertt as to the nature of their cargo. It unloaded cargoes at its will and contented itself with paying the oweers for thetn. It refused to permit shipments to neu trals unless they would enter into agreements ,against re-exportation. As a military measure V the English policy was completely successful. It cut off practically allvneutral trade from over seas to Germany and Austria, not only in mu nitions and in food, but in all commodities front the outside world, and thus prepared the way for the eventual defeat of the German nation and army. When the United States entered the war in April 1917 it forbore to press questions of injury or damages against its associates.