No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Mr. Atherly-Jones, in his Commerce in War, says that what the courts of the United States did, during the Civil War, was not to apply the principle of a continuous voyage (which had been originally asserted in support of national monopolies of colonial trade), to the carriage of contraband goods, still less to blockades; but to depart from the old rules of evidence.
1 Page 255.
2 See Professor Holland’s criticisms in Takahashi’s Cases on International Law During the Chino-Japanese War, xxi.
3 The Springbok, 3 Wall. 1, 20, 22.
4 Hoxie v. Home Insurance Co., 32 Conn. 21, 37; Letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicoll of September 10, 1794, to John Jay, Minister of the United States to England, appendix to Chitty, Law of Nations, 302.
5 Reports of the International Law Association, XXVI, 118.
6 Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 498; 18 How. 110, 114.
7 3 Wall. 514.
8 5 Wall. 28, 56.
9 See The Imina, 3 C. Rob. 167.
10 The Adula, 176 U. S. 361, 370.
11 The Springbok, 3 Wall. 1, 26, 27.
12 Vol. IV, 829, note.
13 Stockton, “ International Naval Conference of London”, this Journal, III, 604, 608.
14 See the German Imperial Prisenordnung, as revised in 1915, Art. 39.
15 See Moore, Int. Law Digest, VIII, 731.
16 In 1882, though it came to a different conclusion in 1896.