Insurance on neutral ships This, which is frequently called the rule of 1756, from its engaged in the having been first settled in that year, was frequently acted upon by Lord Stowell in the course of the wars arising out of the French Revolution. (g) coasting or colonial trade of the enemy. Enemy's goods on board neutral ships, and neutral goods on board enemy's ships. Free ships do not make free goods. Neutral carrying enemy's goods is, on their seizure, entitled to full There can be no doubt that an insurance effected in this country in time of war to protect such privileged neutral trading, would be treated as wholly illegal and void by our courts, on the ground that "trading to an enemy's colony with all the privileges of an enemy's ship, causes a neutral vessel to be regarded as an enemy's ship, and renders her lawful prize." (h) ART. 5. Enemy's Goods on board Neutral Ships, and Neutral § 279. It must now be considered as an established rule of the law of nations, though none has been at times more vehemently contested by those states whose interests it opposed, that neutral ships do not in time of war afford protection to enemy's property, but that such property is liable to be scized by hostile cruisers, though carried under the neutral flag. (i) The carrying, however, of enemy's goods from the neutral territory to the enemy's country, is not a breach of neutral conduct, and if there be nothing unfair in the transaction, he freight from the will be entitled at the hands of the captors to the full freight due for the carriage of the goods upon the whole voyage, though he has not carried them to their place of destination, captors. (g) See the Immanuel, 2 Rob. Ad. practice of Europe in this respect, disRep. 186. (h) Berens v. Rucker, 1 W. Bl. 314. (i) Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. iii. c. 6. sect. 6. Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. iii. c. 7. § 115. One of the most celebrated articles of the code of the armed neutrality of 1780 was, that "all effects belonging to the subjects should be looked upon as free on board neutral ships, except only such as were contraband." Azuni, who gives an interesting narrative of the cusses, on abstract principles, the question "whether free ships should make free goods;" and, though one of the strongest champions of neutral rights, he decides, on principle, that the rule of the English Admiralty is the sound one (Dritto Marittimo dell' Europa, cap. iii. art. 2. vol. ii. p. 172. ed. 1797.) See also the whole subject most ably discussed in Manning's Commentaries on the Law of Nations, 203244. because a surrender of them to the captors is a delivery to the person who, by the rights of war, is put in the place of the consignee. (j) No insurance on such goods themselves could, of course, be enforced in the courts of the hostile belligerent, and would be absolutely illegal and void if made by any of his subjects. If made, however, by neutral subjects, and sought to be enforced in neutral courts, it would be otherwise; for as the neutral may lawfully carry enemy's property, there can be no doubt that he may lawfully insure it. (k) Enemy's goods on board neu tral ships, and neutral goods on board enemy's ships. Insurance on enemy's goods on board neutral ships could not be enforced in the belligebut will be rent courts; valid in those of the neutral. But insurance on the goods of owners on other neutral board the same ship, but not covered by the same policy, may be enforced in the courts of the belligerent. It is also quite clear that an insurance may be lawfully effected in the belligerent country on property belonging to other neutral owners on board the same ship as that which is conveying enemy's goods to an enemy's port; for although the fact of so carrying enemy's goods may subject the neutral ship to be detained and carried into the ports of the belligerent, yet it does not render the adventure illegal so as to affect the interest of other neutral owners, or even of the same owners, if not covered by the same policy as that by which the enemy's goods are insured. Hence, where an American ship bound from New York to Barker v. Havre, was carried into Bristol by British cruisers for examination, and found to have a small portion of enemy's property on board, it was held that British underwriters were nevertheless answerable to other neutral owners of neutral goods insured on board the same ship, but not by the same policy, in respect of loss incurred on such goods by the breaking up of the voyage consequent on the ship's being so taken in for examination. (1) Blakes, 9 East, 283. seizure on board enemy's It is a clear rule of the law of nations, that the effects of Neutral proneutrals found on board enemy's ships shall be free, and both perty is free of cases rest 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. (m) (j) The Copenhagen, 1 Rob. Rep. 289. (k) Kent's Comm., vol. iii. p. 267. ed. 1844. (1) Barker v. Blakes, 9 East, 283. merchant ships. Enemy's goods on board neu tral ships, and neutral goods on board enemy's ships. Not, however, ships of the enemy. The captor of neutral goods found on board an enemy's vessel, is entitled to freight upon them if he performs the voyage, and carries the goods to their port of original destination, but not otherwise. (n) The immunity of neutral goods, however, on board an on board armed enemy's ship, is confined to the case of a merchantman, and does not extend to an armed cruiser; for by placing them on board an armed ship of the enemy he shows an intention to resist visitation and search, and to that extent an adherence to the enemy. (o) (n) The Fortuna, 4 Rob. Rep. 278. The Diana, 5 Rob. Rep. 67. (0) The Fanny, 1 Dodson's Adm. Rep. 443. END OF PART II. |