of christendom, they are obligatory, and can neither be resisted nor disputed. But, beyond this, they have no force as rules of international law. For no belligerent nation can impose upon a neutral its regulations, or dictate to such neutral unusual rules of evidence, or arbitrary means of proof. In other words, if a neutral, who has purchased a vessel from a belligerent, holds such vessel by a title valid by the law of nations, he cannot be deprived of it by a prize court, because he does not prove his ownership according to the arbitrary and unusual rules of evidence which that court may adopt. If the sale be valid, it cannot be annulled by any rules which a belligerent nation may see fit to prescribe for itself, but which, by the law of nations, are not obligatory upon neutrals. (Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 2, pp. 84, et seq.; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 8, p. 486; Duer, On Insurance, vol. 1, pp. 446-448; Kluber, Droit des Gens, § 234; Rayneval, Droit de la Nat. et des Gens, liv. 3, chs. 14, 15; 1he Noydt Gedacht, 2 Rob. Rep., p. 137, note; The Sechs Geschwistern, 4 Rob. Rep., p. 100; The Vigilantia, 1 Rob. Rep., p. 1; The Embden, 1 Rob, Rep., p. 16; The Jemmy, 4 Rob. Rep., p. 31; The Argo, 1 Rob. Rep., p. 163; The Vrow Hermina, 1 Rob. Rep., p. 163; The Endraught, 1 Rob. Rep., pp. 18, 19; The Minerva, 6 Rob. Rep., pp. 396, 399; The Omnibus, 6 Rob. Rep., p. 71; The Packet de Bilboa, 2 Rob. Rep, p. 133.)

§17. It follows, from the rules of decision heretofore announced, that the character of property on the high seas, whether vessels or goods, results, as a general rule, from the character of their owners, or those who are regarded in international law as the owners. If such owners are hostile, friendly or neutral, according to the particular rules of law applicable to the state of war, their property is, in general, to be considered hostile, friendly or neutral, and as such, is subject to, or exempt from, capture. The laws of war applicable to ownership are, as before remarked, different from those which apply in time of peace, and hence what, by the latter, would be considered the property of a neutral, will not unfrequently by the former, be regarded as the property of an enemy. But there are numerous exceptions to this general rule, that the character of property on the high seas

results from that of its owner, for the property of neutrals, subjects, and allies, is not unfrequently impressed with a hostile character from the circumstances of its locality, use, etc. Thus, ships are deemed to belong to the country under whose flag and pass they sail; at least, this circumstance is conclusive, as against the party who takes the benefit of them, although they do not bind other parties, as against him. So, a ship belonging to a neutral owner may acquire a hostile character from the trade in which she engages, or some particular act which she may do. The same may be said with respect to proprietory interests in cargoes, although, in general, goods have the same national character as their owners; yet they sometimes have impressed on them a hostile character while their owners are friendly or neutral, sometimes from their origin, character, or use, and sometimes from the acts of their owners, of the ship in which they are carried, or of the master in charge of them. These questions will be more particularly discussed in the following chapters, and more especially in that on the determination of national character. (Wildman, Int. Law, vol. 2, pp. 93, 94; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 5, §1; Phillimore, On Int. Law, vol. 3, §§ 485, 487; The Vigilantia, 1 Rob. Rep., pp. 1, 19, 26; The Vrow Anna Catharina, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 161; The Magnus, 1 Rob. Rep., p. 31; The Fortuna, 1 Dod. Rep., p. 87; The Success, 1 Dod. Rep., p. 131; The Princessa, 2 Rob. Rep., p. 49; The Anna Catherina, 4 Rob. Rep., p. 107; The Rendsborg, 4 Rob. Rep., p. 121; The Commercen, 1 Wheaton Rep., p. 382; The Phoenix, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 20; The Dree Gebroeders, 4 Rob. Rep., p. 232.)

§ 18. In determining the national character of property, courts of prize generally look only to the legal title; and when, from the papers, the right of property in a captured ship or cargo appears to be vested in an enemy, no equitable or secret liens of a neutral or a subject can be made the foundation of a claim to defeat or vary the rights of the captors. The only exception to this rule, is where the lien is immediately and visibly incumbent upon the property, and consequently, is one which the party claiming its benefit has the means of enforcing without resort to legal process. Of such a nature is the freight due to the owner of the ship, for the

ship-owner has the cargo in his possession, subject to his demand of freight money, by the general law, independent of any contract. The distinction between the two classes of liens is properly expressed in the language of the civil law, by regarding one as a jus ad rem, and the other as a jus in re. (Duer, On Insurance, vol. 1, p. 535; The San José Judiana, 2 Gallis. Rep., p. 284; The Frances, 18 Cranch. Rep., p. 418; The Tobago, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 218; The Marianna, 6 Rob. Rep., p. 24.)

§ 19. It is stated by Mr. Wheaton that, in addition to the certificate of registry, which is the proof naturally to be looked to for the national character of the ship, the following proofs of property in a vessel and cargo are usually required: "1st, The Passport or Sea-Letter. This is a permission from the neutral state to the master of the vessel to proceed on the intended voyage, and usually contains his name and residence, the name, description, and destination of the vessel, with such other matter as the local law and practice require." "2d, The Muster Roll, or Role d' Equipage, containing the names, ages, quality, and national character of every person of the ship's company." "3d, The Charter Party; if the vessel has been let to hire." "4th, The Bills of Lading, by which the master acknowledges the receipt of the goods specified therein, and promises to deliver to the consignee or his order." "5th, The Invoices, which contain the particulars and prices of each parcel of the goods, with a statement of the charges thereon." "6th, The Log-book, or ship's Journal, which contains an accurate account of the vessel's course, with a short history of the occurrences during the voyage.' "As the whole of these papers may be fabricated," says Mr. Wheaton, "their presence does not necessarily imply a fair case; neither does the absence of any of them furnish a conclusive ground of condemnation, as has been most unjustly provided by the ordinances of certain belligerent powers. As they furnish presumptive evidence only of the property in the vessel, and cargo belonging to those to whom it purports to belong; so, on the other hand, their absence affords only presumptive evidence of the existence of enemy interests, which may be rebutted by other proof of a positive nature, accounting for the want of them, and supplying their

place, according to the circumstances of each particular case." At one period it was customary for the government of the United States to issue sea-letters and certificates of ownership to vessels owned by American citizens, whether entitled or not to registry and enrollment. But, since the acts of March 26th, and June 30th, 1810, these particular documents are not often issued. With respect to ships which have been transferred abroad, a bill of sale is the proper evidence of ownership. "A bill of sale," says Lord Stowell, "is the proper title to which the maritime courts of all countries would look. It is the universal instrument of the transfer of ships in the usage of all maritime countries." (Pistoye et Duverdy, Des Prises, tit. 6, ch. 2, sec. 4; Bello, Derecho Internacional, pt. 2, cap. 8, § 11; Kent, Com. on Am. Law, vol. 1, p. 130; Wheaton, On Captures, pp. 65, 66; Duer, On Insurance, vol. 1, pp. 550, 551; The Sisters, 5 Rob. Rep., p. 155; The Pizzaro, 2 Wheaton Rep., p. 227; The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheaton Rep., p. 1; The Nereide, 9 Cranch. Rep., p. 388.)

§ 20. There seems to be some difference in the laws of different states, as well as in the decisions of their courts and in the opinions of their text-writers, with respect to the character of the documents requisite to prove the neutrality of a vessel, and with respect to the effect of those documents even when their genuineness is unimpeached. Bello is of opinion that the passport, or sea-letter, is absolutely indispensable for the security of the vessel. Article two of the French ordonnance of July 26th, 1778, requires that neutral vessels shall prove their neutral character by "passe-ports, connaissements, factures et outres pièces de abord, l'une desquelles au moins constatera la propriété neutre," etc. And article six, of the ordonnance of 1861, says: "Seront encore de bonne prise les vaisseaux, avec leur chargement, dans lesquels il ne sera trouvé chartes-parties, connaissements, ni factures." Abreu was of opinion, that these words were to be taken collectively, and not distributively. But this is evidently erroneous, for another provision of the ordonnance is (article thirteen) that no friendly or neutral vessel is to be made prize, if the captain produces the "charte-partie, ou police de chargement," which latter word signifies the same as connaissement. Massé seems to think that the absence of a passport is a necessary cause of confis

cation, and that it cannot be replaced by any other document. But Hautefeuille, Pistoye et Duverdy, and others, do not consider it as indispensable, and such has been the decision of the French courts. According to English and American decisions, the neutral character of a vessel may be sustained without her having on board either register, or passport; although in the absence of both, the presumption would be against her. Si a liquid ex solemnibus deficiat, `cum aequitas pascit, subveniendum est. As already stated, the presence of all the usual documents would not be conclusive in her favor. (Pistoye et Duverdy, des Precis, tit. 6, ch. 2, sec. 4; Massé, Droit Commercial, liv. 2, tit. 1, §§ 342; Hautefeuille, Des Nations Neutres, tit, 12; Merlin, Repertoire, verb. Prises Maritimes, § 3; Abreu, Traité des Prises, pt. 1, ch. 2, § 17; Valin, Des Prises, pp. 55, 56; Martens, Des Amateurs, § 21; Dalloz, Repertoire, verb. Prises Maritimes, sec. 3.)

§ 21. As the French decisions on this subject have differed, in some respects, from our own, we will give a synopsis of a few of the most important. In the case of Le Nisus c. Le Mansoure et Le Rouge, it was held that a merchant coastingvessel, without documents aboard, was not good prize, where not required by the laws and usages of its own government; but, in the Mistick Grec c. La Junon, where such vessel was armed, it was condemned as good prize. In the case of La Notre-dame du Pilier, it was held that the evidence of the crew, as to the hostile character of the vessel, must prevail over the neutral character of the papers found aboard. The same decision was confirmed in Le Munster c. Le Brave and La Nancy c. L'Enjoleur. In La Saint-Antoine, et al., c. L'Audacieux, where the vessels were furnished with double documents, French and belligerent, further evidence was resorted to, which evidence established their hostile character, and they were condemned. In La Molly c. L'Ecole, notwithstanding the neutral and regular character of the documents found aboard, the vessel was condemned as hostile on other evidence. In the case of Le Winyau c. L'Ariége, regular neutral papers were shown, but others showing the hostile character of the vessel were also found aboard, and she was condemned. In the case of Le Reysiger c. Le Courageux, two neutral passports were found aboard, one for coasting, and