Note 400, p. 499, note 1 — Chapter IV · CONTRABAND

[834] The so-called doctrine of continuous voyages dates from the time of the Anglo-French wars at the end of the eighteenth century, and is connected with the application of the so-called rule of 1756. (See above, § 289.) Neutral vessels engaged in French and Spanish colonial trade, thrown open to them during the war, sought to evade seizure by British cruisers and condemnation by British Prize Courts, according to the rule of 1756, by taking their cargo to a neutral port, landing it and paying import duties there, and then re-lading it and carrying it to the mother country of the respective colony. Thus in the case of the William (1806), 5 C. Rob. 385, it was proved that this neutral vessel took a cargo from the Spanish port La Guira to the port of Marblehead in Massachusetts—the United States being neutral—landed the cargo, paid import duties there, then took in the chief part of this cargo besides other goods, and sailed after a week for the Spanish port of Bilbao. In all such cases the British Prize Courts considered the voyages from the colonial port to the neutral port and from there to the enemy port as one continuous voyage and confirmed the seizure of the ships concerned. See Remy, Théorie de la continuauté du voyage en matière de blocus et de contrebande (1902); Hansemann, Die Lehre von der einheitlichen Reise im Rechte der Blockade und Kriegskonterbande (1910), and Fauchille in R.G. IV. (1897), pp. 297-323. The American Courts have applied the doctrine of continuous voyages not only to carriage of contraband but also to blockade; see above, § 385 (4), where the cases of the Bermuda and the Stephen Hart are quoted.